ISCR Case 02-31190.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-31190.h1

deniedAug 17, 2005· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor courier was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had accumulated nearly $60,000 in unresolved delinquent debts, including child support, car repossession deficiencies, tax liens, judgments, and credit card accounts.

Additionally, the applicant had a history of drug and alcohol use, including marijuana use from 1976 until at least 2000. While a bus driver, he tested positive for marijuana twice and, in April 2000, reported to work with an unacceptably high alcohol level, leading to his retirement to avoid termination. The applicant made multiple deliberate false statements to the government, including failing to disclose his employment termination action and drug use on his March 2002 SF 86. He also falsely stated to a Defense Security Service agent in June 2002 that his last marijuana use was in 1997.

Furthermore, his SF 86 omitted significant financial information, such as two car repossessions, at least two tax liens, an unpaid judgment, and several other debts over 90 or 180 days past due. The administrative judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has nearly $60,000 in unpaid debts and has not taken action to resolve them.
Applicant deliberately omitted significant information regarding his drug use and financial issues from his SF 86.
Applicant made false statements to a DSS agent regarding his drug use, violating federal law.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
DC 3appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
DC 2appliedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
DC 3appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
DC 1appliedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 11, 2004
Answer filed—Applicant denied allegations and requested a hearing.
Hearing heldFeb 1, 2005Parties appeared as scheduled.
Decision dateAug 17, 2005Decision issuance delayed due to large caseload.

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Deliberate Omission of Material Facts Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used marijuana from 1976 until at least 2000. While working as a bus driver, he twice tested positive for marijuana in his system and was reprimanded according to company and union procedures. In April 2000, he reported to work in the early morning hours after a night of drinking. He was given a urine test and found to have an unacceptably high level of alcohol in his system. As it was his third violation of the bus company's drug and alcohol policies, the company moved to terminate his employment. Applicant challenged his dismissal and was eventually allowed to retire instead.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment GeneralFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	Applicant submitted an SF 86 on March 25, 2002. In response to questions 20 and 27, which seek information about adverse employment terminations and prior drug use, respectively, Applicant failed to disclose the dismissal action and related drug use.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	When he was interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent in June 2002, Applicant falsely stated he last used marijuana in 1997.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.d	When he filled out his SF 86 in March 2002, Applicant disclosed only that he owed a deficiency of about $4,000 for a defaulted auto loan. He failed to disclose two of his cars had been repossessed, or that at least two tax liens had been levied against him. Further, Applicant omitted the fact there was still one unpaid judgment against him, and that he owed several other debts that were greater than 90 days or 180 days past due.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.e–2.g	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant used marijuana from 1976 until at least 2000. While working as a bus driver, he twice tested positive for marijuana in his system and was reprimanded according to company and union procedures. In April 2000, he reported to work in the early morning hours after a night of drinking. He was given a urine test and found to have an unacceptably high level of alcohol in his system. As it was his third violation of the bus company's drug and alcohol policies, the company moved to terminate his employment. Applicant challenged his dismissal and was eventually allowed to retire instead.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment GeneralFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.b

Applicant submitted an SF 86 on March 25, 2002. In response to questions 20 and 27, which seek information about adverse employment terminations and prior drug use, respectively, Applicant failed to disclose the dismissal action and related drug use.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.c

When he was interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent in June 2002, Applicant falsely stated he last used marijuana in 1997.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.d

When he filled out his SF 86 in March 2002, Applicant disclosed only that he owed a deficiency of about $4,000 for a defaulted auto loan. He failed to disclose two of his cars had been repossessed, or that at least two tax liens had been levied against him. Further, Applicant omitted the fact there was still one unpaid judgment against him, and that he owed several other debts that were greater than 90 days or 180 days past due.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.e–2.g

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has accrued nearly $60,000 in unpaid debts, including child support arrearages, the remaining deficiencies from two car repossessions, unpaid local taxes and liens to collect those debts, judgments to collect unpaid loans, and delinquent credit card accounts charged off as business losses. $60,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b–1.l	11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has accrued nearly $60,000 in unpaid debts, including child support arrearages, the remaining deficiencies from two car repossessions, unpaid local taxes and liens to collect those debts, judgments to collect unpaid loans, and delinquent credit card accounts charged off as business losses.

$60,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b–1.l

11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant deliberately made false statements to the government about matters within its jurisdiction, which violates federal law under Title 18 U.S.C. §1001.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant deliberately made false statements to the government about matters within its jurisdiction, which violates federal law under Title 18 U.S.C. §1001.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES