Summary
A 49-year-old senior engineer/scientist for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a petty theft conviction and the subsequent falsification of his security clearance application.
In February 2001, the applicant committed petty theft by shoplifting two DVDs from a warehouse store, returning to steal two more. He was arrested, charged, and convicted for this offense. Subsequently, when completing his security clearance application (SF 86) on June 4, 2002, the applicant answered "no" to a question asking about arrests, charges, or convictions within the last seven years, thereby failing to disclose his recent criminal record.
The judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct, specifically the petty theft, raised concerns about his judgment and reliability. Furthermore, his deliberate omission of this conviction on the SF 86 demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness. Despite the consideration of potential mitigating conditions, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate the significant security concerns raised by his criminal conduct and dishonesty, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant was convicted of petty theft, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.
- The applicant falsified his security clearance application by omitting his criminal conviction, demonstrating a lack of candor and trustworthiness.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged.
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
- E2.A10.1.3.2rejectedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident.The applicant's false statement on his SF 86 combined with his criminal conduct indicated an ongoing issue.
- E2.A10.1.3.3rejectedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation.The applicant did not provide evidence of rehabilitation.
- E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily.The applicant was aware of his criminal conduct when he failed to disclose it.
- E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts.The applicant did not correct the information until confronted by the DSS investigator.
Key rule quoted
“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedSep 21, 2004
- Answer filedOct 26, 2004Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decided on the written record.
- Decision dateFeb 15, 2005
Cite for
- Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline J for Criminal Conduct
- Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E for Personal Conduct
- The Importance of Candor in Security Clearance Applications