Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 32-year-old Administrative Assistant for a defense contractor, faced issues under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct) due to significant financial indebtedness, intentional falsifications on his security clearance application, and a history of arrests. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve his debts and did not provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, 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: The Applicant completed a Security Clearance Application (Standard Form 86) dated July 25, 2002. Question 26 of the application asked the Applicant if in the last seven years he had been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offenses(s) not listed in modules 21, 22, 23, 24 or 25. The Applicant answered, "NO." This was a false answer. The Applicant failed to disclose that he was arrested in March 1999 and charged with Alleged Threats/Resisting Apprehension and in March 2002 for Second Degree Assault (2.a). The same application, at question 37, asked the Applicant if in the last seven years he has had any judgments against him that have not been paid. The Applicant answered, "NO." This was a false answer. The Applicant failed to disclose a judgment issued against him in November 1995 and another in June 2001 (2.b). The same application, at question 38 asked the Applicant if in the last seven years he has ever been over 180 days delinquent on any debts. The Applicant answered, "YES," and listed one debt for $4,000 owed to a bank. This was not all or even close to being accurate. The Applicant failed to list his twenty four other delinquent debts set forth in the SOR (2.c). I find that the Applicant knew or should have known to reveal the truth about his criminal record and his history of delinquent debts. The fact that he did not indicates that he was simply not being truthful at the time he completed the security clearance application (2.d). Delinquent debt totaling approximately $12,180 (1.a). Delinquent debt totaling approximately $32,000 (1.b). The Applicant's deliberate falsifications on his security clearance application, discussed above, are a violation of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001, a felony (3.a). The Applicant was arrested on March 6,1999, and charged with Alleged Threats/Resisting Apprehension (3.b). He was also arrested on March 27, 2002, and charged with Second Degree Assault. He pled no contest and was ordered to take an Anger Management Class and sentenced to one year of probation (3.c).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F1, F3, E2, J1, J2. The decision turned on the following: The applicant's financial indebtedness remains delinquent, with no evidence of a good faith effort to resolve debts; The applicant intentionally falsified material information on his security clearance application, violating Title 18, U.S.C. § 1001; The applicant's history of arrests has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform or rehabilitation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant's financial indebtedness remains delinquent, with no evidence of a good faith effort to resolve debts.
• The applicant intentionally falsified material information on his security clearance application, violating Title 18, U.S.C. § 1001.
• The applicant's history of arrests has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform or rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedAug 31, 2004
• Answer filedOct 7, 2004
• Hearing held—Determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.
• Decision dateDec 7, 2005

Cite For

• Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
• Intentional Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
• Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J