ISCR Case 03-07098.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-07098.h1

deniedApr 25, 2006· Hon. Juan J. Rivera· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old married man with two children was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a lengthy history of criminal behavior, including multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated and battery. Additionally, he committed numerous traffic violations and assaults, was held in contempt of court, failed to pay fines or make court appearances, and did not comply with probation terms.

A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's deliberate failure to disclose most of this criminal history on his SF 86. The judge found these omissions to be knowing and intentional, committed with the intent to mislead the government, seemingly out of concern for the adverse impact on his clearance qualifications.

The judge concluded that the applicant's criminal conduct and deliberate omissions raised serious concerns about his judgment and reliability. His explanations for the omissions were not deemed credible, and he did not demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of criminal behavior, including multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated and battery.
He deliberately failed to disclose significant criminal history on his SF 86, which was deemed intentional and misleading.
The applicant's explanations for his omissions were not credible, and he did not demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JDC 1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
JDC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
EDC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
EDC 4raisedPersonal Conduct or Concealment of Information That Increases an Individual's Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation or Duress

Mitigating

JMC 1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Is Not Recent
EMC 1rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's lengthy history of criminal behavior was not isolated and demonstrated a lack of judgment.

Key Rule Quoted

“A single criminal incident calls into question a person's judgment. Repeated misconduct after several convictions demonstrates an absolute lack of judgment and complete disregard for the law, rules and regulations.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 30, 2004
Answer filedDec 12, 2004Requested decision based on written record without a hearing.
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 25, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on a Lengthy History of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Deliberate Falsification of SF 86 Under Guideline E
Lack of Credible Explanations for Omissions in Security Clearance Application

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	In 2002, Applicant deliberately failed to disclose most of this information in his SF 86.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
2.b	Applicant chose not to disclose his past criminal behavior, seemingly, because of his concern for the adverse impact this information would have had on his qualifications to obtain a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
2.c	Applicant's omissions were knowing and deliberate, and committed with the intent to mislead the government.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In 2002, Applicant deliberately failed to disclose most of this information in his SF 86.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

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

—

2.b

Applicant chose not to disclose his past criminal behavior, seemingly, because of his concern for the adverse impact this information would have had on his qualifications to obtain a security clearance.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

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

—

2.c

Applicant's omissions were knowing and deliberate, and committed with the intent to mislead the government.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was convicted of two driving while intoxicated offenses.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	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 was convicted of two battery offenses.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	Applicant committed numerous traffic violations.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.d	Applicant committed numerous assaults.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	Applicant was held in contempt of court.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.f	Applicant failed to pay fines and make court appearances.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.g	Applicant failed to comply with the terms of his probation.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.h	Applicant deliberately failed to disclose most of this information in his SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.i–1.k	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was convicted of two driving while intoxicated offenses.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

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 was convicted of two battery offenses.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

Applicant committed numerous traffic violations.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

1.d

Applicant committed numerous assaults.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

1.e

Applicant was held in contempt of court.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

1.f

Applicant failed to pay fines and make court appearances.

Against Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

1.g

Applicant failed to comply with the terms of his probation.

Against Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

1.h

Applicant deliberately failed to disclose most of this information in his SF 86.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

1.i–1.k

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES