Summary
The applicant, a 48-year-old electronics technician for a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guidelines E, F, and J due to 16 delinquent debts, multiple domestic disturbance arrests, and failure to disclose these issues on his security clearance application. While he mitigated some financial and criminal conduct concerns, he did not mitigate the personal conduct concern, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant failed to disclose his 1998 arrest by civilian police and the 1996 and 1997 incidents at Applicant's last military assignment (3.a). Department store, $1,654 (1.a). Military department store, $3,740 (1.b). Telephone bill, $171 (1.c). Bank credit card, $708 (1.d). Pizza purchase and check bounced, $13 (1.e). Loan company, $115 (1.f). Public library for unreturned items, $168 (1.g). Telephone bill, $87 (1.h). Dentist, $532 (1.i). Credit card, $696 (1.j). Bank debt, $803.09 (1.k). Telephone bill, $175 (1.l). Telephone bill, $510 (1.m). Cable T.V. bill, $68 (1.n). Grocery store purchases with check that was NSF, $490 (1.o). Grocery store purchase with NSF check, $558 (1.p).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A5.1.2.2, E2.A10.1.2.1, E2.A10.1.2.2. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A10.1.3.1, E2.A10.1.3.6. The decision turned on the following: The applicant failed to disclose significant arrests on his security clearance application, indicating a lack of candor and reliability; A pattern of domestic disturbances raised concerns about the applicant's judgment and trustworthiness; Despite mitigating some financial issues, the applicant's personal conduct concerns were not sufficiently addressed.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to disclose significant arrests on his security clearance application, indicating a lack of candor and reliability.
- A pattern of domestic disturbances raised concerns about the applicant's judgment and trustworthiness.
- Despite mitigating some financial issues, the applicant's personal conduct concerns were not sufficiently addressed.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personal Security Questionnaire Used to Conduct Investigations, Determine Security Clearance Eligibility or Trustworthiness.
- E2.A10.1.2.1appliedA History or Pattern of Criminal Activity Creates Doubt About a Person's Judgment, Reliability and Trustworthiness.
- E2.A10.1.2.2appliedSingle Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.
- E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Applicant's Control.
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Conduct Occurred a Significant Time Ago and Has Not Recurred Recently.
- E2.A10.1.3.6appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation in the Domestic Disturbance Realm.
Key Rule Quoted
“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 4, 2004
- Answer filedMar 1, 2004
- Hearing heldOct 5, 2004
- Decision dateMar 16, 2005
Cite For
- Failure to Disclose Significant Arrests on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Pattern of Domestic Disturbances Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F but Not Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E.