CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-06016.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-06016.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-06016.h1

deniedOct 15, 2004· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed primarily from the applicant's intentional falsification of material facts on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) and a history of alcohol-related offenses.

Specifically, the applicant falsely stated on the PSQ that he had no alcohol or drug-related charges or convictions, despite having a 1985 DUI conviction and a 1997 alcohol-related arrest and conviction. This intentional falsification on the PSQ constitutes a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

The decision highlighted a continuing pattern of criminal activity, citing the serious nature of the felony falsification and the applicant's prior convictions. While there were also unproven arrests from the 1960s and 1971, these did not factor into the denial. No mitigating conditions were found to apply given the seriousness and recency of the applicant's dishonest and criminal conduct.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally falsified material facts on the PSQ, which is a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
The applicant's criminal history includes a 1985 DUI conviction and a 1997 alcohol-related conviction, establishing a pattern of serious conduct.
No mitigating conditions applied due to the seriousness and recency of the applicant's conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
E2.A10.1.2.2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 1, 2004
Answer filedApr 13, 2004
Hearing heldSep 8, 2004
Decision dateOct 15, 2004

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Material Facts Under Guideline E
Serious Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Lack of Mitigating Conditions for Recent Criminal Activity

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing intentional falsification of material facts on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) as a serious concern. The applicant's recent conduct and lack of credible evidence for prompt correction of the falsification led to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1	Applicant intentionally falsified material facts on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) by stating he had not been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs, despite having a 1985 DUI conviction and a 1997 alcohol-related arrest and conviction.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2	Applicant's conduct constitutes a continuing pattern of criminal activity due to the serious nature of the intentional falsification on the PSQ, which is a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct. The applicant's history included a 1985 DUI conviction and a 1997 alcohol-related offense, along with a 2002 intentional falsification of material facts on a security questionnaire. The judge determined that this pattern of conduct was too serious and recent to be mitigated, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested on four or five occasions in the 1960s and in 1971. There is no evidence that he was ever convicted of anything following these 30 and 40 year old arrests.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a 1985 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) conviction.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	Applicant has a 1997 alcohol-related arrest and conviction.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.d	Applicant intentionally falsified material facts on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) in 2002, which constitutes a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	No mitigating conditions apply to applicant's dishonest conduct.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: October 15, 2004

In Re:

--------------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 03-06016

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS

Most of applicant's criminal conduct was minor and occurred a long time ago. However, a 1985 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) conviction, a 1997 alcohol-related arrest and conviction, and applicant's 2002 intentional falsification of material facts on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ), which constitutes a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, establishes a continuing pattern of criminal conduct that is too serious and recent to be mitigated. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On April 1, 2004, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as administratively reissued on April 20, 1999), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on April 13, 2004. The case was assigned to the undersigned on June 17, 2004. Notices of Hearing were issued on July 8 and August 24, 2004, and the hearing was held on September 8, 2004. The transcript was received on September 22, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 57 year old employee of a defense contractor.

Applicant completed a PSQ on May 28, 2002 (Exhibit 2). In response to Question 24, which asked, "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?" applicant stated "no." This response was false because applicant had been charged with alcohol-related offenses in 1985 and July 1997. In a signed, sworn statement that he gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in January 2003 (Exhibit 4), applicant stated, "I did not list this [July 1997] arrest on my security questionnaire because I was embarrassed." At the hearing applicant testified, in essence, that although he was working out of town at the time he completed the PSQ, and therefore did not have access to his records concerning these arrests, he still knew he should have responded "yes" to Question 24. He further testified that answering "no" was a "stupid thing to do" (TR at 24-25).

In his response to the SOR, applicant admitted all of the factual allegations under Guideline J. Accordingly, SOR Paragraphs 2a through 2e are incorporated by reference as Findings of Fact.

CONCLUSION

With respect to Guideline E, applicant's falsification of material facts on the PSQ is extremely troubling. The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking access to our nation's secrets. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders. Applicant's intentional falsification of material facts requires application of Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . .). No Mitigating Conditions apply to applicant's dishonest conduct. (1) Based on the foregoing, Guideline E is found against applicant.

With respect to Guideline J, the evidence establishes that applicant was arrested on four or five occasions in the 1960sand in 1971. There is no evidence that he was ever convicted of anything following these 30 and 40 year old arrests. These incidents are mitigated by the lack of convictions and the passage of time. In short, they have absolutely no current security significance.

Applicant's 1985 DUI conviction and July 1997 plea of nolo contendere to Reckless Driving raise security concerns. Nevertheless, had they been the last criminal activity on the part of applicant, they too would be mitigated by the passage of time. However, because applicant's intentional falsification of material facts on the PSQ he executed in May 2002 constitutes a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, I must conclude that applicant's conduct constitutes a continuing pattern of criminal activity that is too serious and recent to be mitigated. Disqualifying Condition E2.A10.1.2.2 (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses) is applicable to this case. No Mitigating Factors are applicable.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

PARAGRAPH 2: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.

____________________________

Joseph Testan

Administrative Judge

1. Mitigating Condition E2.A5.1.3.2 doesn't apply because the falsification was recent. Mitigating Condition E2.A5.1.3.3 doesn't apply because there is no credible evidence that applicant made a prompt, good-faith effort to correct his falsifications before being confronted with the facts.

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Edward W. Loughran, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se