Summary
A 56-year-old defense contractor analyst was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a history of sexual misconduct involving minors and subsequent dishonesty on his security clearance application. The applicant intentionally omitted critical information regarding his criminal history and provided false statements to investigators, failing to establish adequate mitigation.
Specifically, the applicant falsified his June 19, 2000, Security Clearance Application (SF 86) by failing to disclose that a 1995 arrest for "Assault/Misdemeanor" was actually for "Annoying Children," which resulted in a sex offender registration. He also failed to mention a separate incident of inappropriate sexual contact with a minor in 1994. Furthermore, on April 2, 2002, the applicant falsely told a Defense Security Service agent that the 1995 incident was his only inappropriate contact with a minor, despite knowing about the 1994 incident.
The judge found that the applicant intentionally falsified material facts on his application and lied to investigators. His explanations for his conduct were deemed contradictory and unpersuasive, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant intentionally falsified material facts on his security clearance application.
- The applicant lied to a Defense Security Service agent about his history of inappropriate contact with minors.
- The applicant's explanations for his conduct were found to be contradictory and unpersuasive.
Conditions referenced
- DC 1appliedReliable Unfavorable Information Provided by Associates, Neighbors, and Other Acquaintances.
- DC 2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Information From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
- DC 3appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Information to an Investigator, Security Official, Competent Medical Authority, or Other Official Representative in Connection with a Personnel Security or Trustworthiness Determination.
- MC 2rejectedThe Falsifications Are Still Recent.
- MC 3rejectedThe Correct Information Was Provided Only After Being Confronted by the DSS Agent.
Key rule quoted
“any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with the interests of national security will be resolved in favor of the nation's security.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJan 21, 2004
- Answer filedMar 9, 2004
- Hearing heldMay 24, 2004
- Decision dateSep 10, 2004
Cite for
- Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Impact of Past Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Credibility Issues Arising From Dishonesty in Security Clearance Proceedings