ISCR Case 03-05729.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-05729.h1

deniedFeb 15, 2005· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

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

Disqualifying

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.

Mitigating

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.”
— Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.

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

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
2.a	Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF 86) on June 4, 2002. Applicant answered "no" to question 23: (For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been "sealed" or otherwise stricken from the court record. Section (f): In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in response to a, b, c, d, or e above . . .)	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF 86) on June 4, 2002. Applicant answered "no" to question 23: (For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been "sealed" or otherwise stricken from the court record. Section (f): In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in response to a, b, c, d, or e above . . .)

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In February 2001, Applicant went into a warehouse store and put two DVDs down his pants. He left the store without paying for the merchandise. Applicant put the merchandise in his car, returned to the store and did the same thing, stealing two more DVDs. Applicant was arrested, charged and convicted of petty theft.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant completed his security clearance application in June 2002, and falsified his application by failing to divulge his arrest and conviction.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In February 2001, Applicant went into a warehouse store and put two DVDs down his pants. He left the store without paying for the merchandise. Applicant put the merchandise in his car, returned to the store and did the same thing, stealing two more DVDs. Applicant was arrested, charged and convicted of petty theft.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

—

1.b

Applicant completed his security clearance application in June 2002, and falsified his application by failing to divulge his arrest and conviction.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

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