ISCR Case 02-32082.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-32082.h1

deniedDec 8, 2005· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 67-year-old systems engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant deliberately omitted or provided false information on security clearance applications submitted in 1996 and 2002, and in a 2003 statement. Specifically, he failed to disclose multiple DUI and suspended license arrests, numerous tax liens, and a foreclosure action. He also provided false information to a Special Agent in April 2003.

Regarding criminal conduct, the applicant was arrested on August 10, 1996, for DUI and driving with a BAC of .08 or more. He pled nolo contendere, was found guilty, received five years probation, paid $1,532.00 in fines and fees, and had his license suspended for six months. On September 7, 1996, he was arrested again for DUI and other traffic offenses, pleading nolo contendere to reckless driving, resulting in three years probation and $884.00 in fines and costs. A third DUI arrest occurred on April 1, 1999, with no disposition information provided.

The denial was based on the applicant's provision of false information on security clearance applications concerning his criminal history and financial issues. His multiple DUI arrests and tax liens raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability, and his evasive and misleading testimony during the hearing further undermined his credibility. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant provided false information on security clearance applications regarding his criminal history and financial issues.
The applicant's history of multiple DUI arrests and tax liens raised significant security concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant's evasive and misleading testimony during the hearing undermined his credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
DC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
DC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
DC 3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matter

Key Rule Quoted

“No one has a right to a security clearance and the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 3, 2004
Answer filedOctober 8, 2004 and December 3, 2004
Hearing heldNov 3, 2005Applicant failed to appear twice before this date.
Decision dateDec 8, 2005

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Under Guideline E Due to False Statements
Impact of Multiple DUI Arrests on Security Clearance Eligibility
Credibility Issues Arising From Evasive Testimony in Security Clearance Hearings.

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
1.a	Applicant deliberately omitted accurate information or provided false information for security clearance applications he submitted in 1996 and 2002, and in a statement he submitted in 2003.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	Applicant failed to disclose in the SF 86s he submitted his multiple DUI and suspended license arrests and charges, the numerous tax liens that had been filed against him, and the foreclosure action.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	Applicant provided false answers and information he provided to the Special Agent in the April 2003 statement.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.d–1.h	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant deliberately omitted accurate information or provided false information for security clearance applications he submitted in 1996 and 2002, and in a statement he submitted in 2003.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

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

—

1.b

Applicant failed to disclose in the SF 86s he submitted his multiple DUI and suspended license arrests and charges, the numerous tax liens that had been filed against him, and the foreclosure action.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

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

—

1.c

Applicant provided false answers and information he provided to the Special Agent in the April 2003 statement.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

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

—

1.d–1.h

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested on August 10, 1996, and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08 or more. He pled nolo contendere to the DUI charge, was found guilty of that offense, and was placed on five years probation and ordered to pay fines and fees totaling $1,532.00. Additionally, his license was suspended for six months.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	Applicant was arrested on September 7, 1996, and again charged with DUI, Driving with a BAC of .08 or more, and other less serious traffic offenses. He pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving, was found guilty of that offense, and was placed on three years probation and ordered to pay fines and costs totaling $884.00.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	Applicant was arrested on April 1, 1999 and charged with DUI. There is no information of record concerning the disposition of this charge.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was arrested on August 10, 1996, and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08 or more. He pled nolo contendere to the DUI charge, was found guilty of that offense, and was placed on five years probation and ordered to pay fines and fees totaling $1,532.00. Additionally, his license was suspended for six months.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.b

Applicant was arrested on September 7, 1996, and again charged with DUI, Driving with a BAC of .08 or more, and other less serious traffic offenses. He pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving, was found guilty of that offense, and was placed on three years probation and ordered to pay fines and costs totaling $884.00.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.c

Applicant was arrested on April 1, 1999 and charged with DUI. There is no information of record concerning the disposition of this charge.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Charged Not Convicted

Admitted

(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