ISCR Case 03-05162.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-05162.h1

deniedDec 30, 2005· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old network engineer and former U.S. Navy member was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from his failure to disclose a non-judicial punishment and a mental health evaluation on his security clearance application (SF-86), as well as providing false information during subsequent interviews with a security investigator.

Specifically, the applicant did not disclose a non-judicial punishment received in December 1998 under Article 15, UCMJ, for using provoking speech and communicating a threat to a chief petty officer. He also failed to disclose a mental health evaluation. During interviews, he provided false explanations for these omissions and for his discharge. Additionally, the applicant had been arrested and charged with assault and battery in December 1993, with charges dismissed after he agreed to pay the victim's medical bills; this incident was also not fully disclosed.

The judge found that the applicant's conduct, including intentional non-disclosure and false statements, raised significant security concerns. Despite the applicant's claims of rehabilitation, these concerns were not mitigated, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant received non-judicial punishment for making threats and using provoking language while in the Navy.
He failed to disclose his non-judicial punishment and mental health evaluation on his SF-86.
The applicant provided false explanations during interviews regarding his omissions and discharge.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.1appliedReliable, Unfavorable Information Provided by Associates, Employers, Coworkers, Neighbors, and Other Acquaintances.
E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personal Security Questionnaire.
E2.A5.1.2.3appliedDeliberately Provides False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters to an Investigator or Security Official.
E2.A5.1.2.4appliedPersonal Conduct or Concealment of Information That Increases an Individual's Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.
E2.A5.1.2.5appliedPattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations.

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily.
E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 13, 2005
Answer filedUndated
Hearing heldOct 28, 2005
Decision dateDec 30, 2005

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct Under Guidelines E and J
Importance of Candor in the Security Clearance Process
Impact of Falsification on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 intentionally did not disclose his non-judicial punishment on his security clearance application (SF-86).	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.b	Applicant did not disclose his mental health evaluation on his security clearance application (SF-86).	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Mental Health	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.c	Applicant provided false explanations for his omissions from the SF-86 during a subsequent interview with a security investigator.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to disclose his non-judicial punishment and mental health evaluation during a security interview.	Against Applicant	Failure to Cooperate with Security ProcessingFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
1.e	Applicant did not intentionally falsify his answer to question 23 when he executed his SF-86 in January 1998.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant intentionally did not disclose his non-judicial punishment on his security clearance application (SF-86).

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.b

Applicant did not disclose his mental health evaluation on his security clearance application (SF-86).

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Mental Health

Denied

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

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.c

Applicant provided false explanations for his omissions from the SF-86 during a subsequent interview with a security investigator.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.d

Applicant failed to disclose his non-judicial punishment and mental health evaluation during a security interview.

Against Applicant

Failure to Cooperate with Security ProcessingFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

1.e

Applicant did not intentionally falsify his answer to question 23 when he executed his SF-86 in January 1998.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant was arrested and charged with assault and battery after a mutual affray at a party in December 1993. The charges were dismissed after the applicant agreed to pay the victim's medical bills.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	The applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for using provoking speech and communicating a threat to his chief petty officer in December 1998.	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	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence
2.c	The applicant made false statements to a security investigator regarding his non-disclosure of his criminal history on his SF-86.	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	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant was arrested and charged with assault and battery after a mutual affray at a party in December 1993. The charges were dismissed after the applicant agreed to pay the victim's medical bills.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

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

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

—

2.b

The applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for using provoking speech and communicating a threat to his chief petty officer in December 1998.

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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

Documented

Rehabilitation Evidence

2.c

The applicant made false statements to a security investigator regarding his non-disclosure of his criminal history on his SF-86.

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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

Documented

Rehabilitation Evidence

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