ISCR Case 02-33169.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-33169.h1

deniedJun 25, 2004· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old paint supervisor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a felony arson conviction in 1980, which resulted in a six-year prison sentence, and a 1990 DUI conviction. The arson conviction, with a sentence exceeding one year, independently disqualified him under 10 U.S.C. 986.

Further issues arose from intentional misrepresentations on his security clearance application. The applicant provided false information regarding his financial condition by denying any bankruptcy filings and misrepresented his alcohol-related criminal conduct and marijuana use. While he demonstrated over a decade of sobriety since his DUI arrest and had a positive employment history, his explanations for these misrepresentations were deemed not credible.

Despite the passage of over 20 years since his arson conviction and over 10 years since his last criminal activity, and credible testimony regarding his current sobriety, the intentional false statements on his application were considered detrimental to his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was convicted of arson and sentenced to more than one year in prison, disqualifying him under 10 U.S.C. 986.
The applicant provided false material information on his security clearance application regarding his DUI conviction and bankruptcy filing.
The applicant's explanations for his misrepresentations were not credible, reflecting adversely on his judgment and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
E2.A5.1.2.3appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters to an Investigator.
E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work.
E2.A7.1.2.3raisedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence.
E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse.
E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse.

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.1appliedThe Alcohol-related Incident(s) Do Not Indicate a Pattern.
E2.A7.1.3.2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem.
E2.A8.1.3.1appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent.
E2.A8.1.3.3appliedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the Future.
E2.A6.1.3.1appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.
E2.A6.1.3.2appliedIt Was an Isolated Incident.
E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control, E.g., Divorce.

Key Rule Quoted

“It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2003
Answer filedDec 15, 2003
Hearing heldApr 20, 2004
Decision dateJun 25, 2004

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Felony Convictions Under Guideline J
Impact of Intentional Misrepresentations on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Mitigating Conditions for Alcohol and Drug-related Incidents in Security Clearance Cases.

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 provided false, material information in response to two questions on the SCA.	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 provided false, material information about his financial condition when he denied filing any bankruptcy petitions on the SCA.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	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, material information about his marijuana use in his signed, sworn statement he provided to DSS.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.a–5.c	11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 8 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant provided false, material information in response to two questions on the SCA.

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 provided false, material information about his financial condition when he denied filing any bankruptcy petitions on the SCA.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

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, material information about his marijuana use in his signed, sworn statement he provided to DSS.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

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

—

2.a–5.c

11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 8 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In 1980, applicant was convicted of Arson and sentenced to 6 years in prison.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	In 1990, he was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.c	Other than a DUI conviction in 1990, applicant has not been involved in any other criminal activity.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
2.a	The passage of time since applicant's Arson conviction (over 20 years) and last criminal activity (over 10 years) would go a long way toward mitigating his criminal conduct.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Documented Passage of Time
2.b	Given applicant's sentence of more than one year of prison following the Arson conviction, this incident disqualifies him from receiving a security clearance under 10 U.S.C. 986.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
3.a	Applicant has not consumed alcohol since the day he was arrested on the DUI charge.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Documented Abstinence Period Documented
3.b	Applicant does not intend to drink in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Documented Severed Ties to Using Friends
3.c	Applicant's testimony was credible regarding his alcohol use.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
4.a	Applicant's positive drug tests in 2001 raise suspicions.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
4.b	Applicant's testimony regarding his drug use was credible.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Documented Severed Ties to Using Friends
5.a	Applicant intentionally provided false material information to the Government about his alcohol-related criminal conduct.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
5.b	Applicant intentionally provided false material information to the Government about his financial condition.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
5.c	Applicant intentionally provided false material information to the Government about his marijuana use.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In 1980, applicant was convicted of Arson and sentenced to 6 years in prison.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Convicted

Denied

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

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.b

In 1990, he was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI).

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

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

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.c

Other than a DUI conviction in 1990, applicant has not been involved in any other criminal activity.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

2.a

The passage of time since applicant's Arson conviction (over 20 years) and last criminal activity (over 10 years) would go a long way toward mitigating his criminal conduct.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Documented

Passage of Time

2.b

Given applicant's sentence of more than one year of prison following the Arson conviction, this incident disqualifies him from receiving a security clearance under 10 U.S.C. 986.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

2.c

Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

3.a

Applicant has not consumed alcohol since the day he was arrested on the DUI charge.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Documented

Abstinence Period Documented

3.b

Applicant does not intend to drink in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Documented

Severed Ties to Using Friends

3.c

Applicant's testimony was credible regarding his alcohol use.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

4.a

Applicant's positive drug tests in 2001 raise suspicions.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

4.b

Applicant's testimony regarding his drug use was credible.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Documented

Severed Ties to Using Friends

5.a

Applicant intentionally provided false material information to the Government about his alcohol-related criminal conduct.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

5.b

Applicant intentionally provided false material information to the Government about his financial condition.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

5.c

Applicant intentionally provided false material information to the Government about his marijuana use.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES