ISCR Case 03-09492.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-09492.h1

deniedFeb 1, 2005· Hon. James A. Young· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old security receptionist for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's wife is a Czech national who does not intend to become a U.S. citizen, and her immediate family resides in the Czech Republic. The applicant also traveled to the Czech Republic multiple times between 1998 and 2002, and he and his wife may move there.

Additionally, the applicant falsified his Questionnaire for National Security Position (QNSP) by denying unpaid judgments, failing to list all alcohol-related offenses, and omitting other arrests, charges, or convictions. This omission constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The administrative judge found that the applicant deliberately falsified his QNSP and that his history of criminal conduct, including multiple DUI offenses, raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Despite his wife's status as a permanent U.S. resident, the foreign influence concerns were not mitigated. The applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised under all three guidelines, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately falsified his Questionnaire for National Security Position by omitting relevant criminal history and unpaid judgments.
The applicant's history of criminal conduct, including multiple DUI offenses, raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant's foreign influence concerns were not mitigated despite his wife's status as a permanent U.S. resident.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From a Personal Security Questionnaire.
E2.A10.1.1raisedA History or Pattern of Criminal Activity Creates Doubt About an Applicant's Judgment, Reliability, and Trustworthiness.

Mitigating

E2.A2.1.3.1appliedThe Foreign Associates Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power.
E2.A5.1.1rejectedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations Could Indicate the Applicant May Not Properly Safeguard Classified Information.

Key Rule Quoted

“"No one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 4, 2004
Answer filedMay 18, 2004
Hearing heldDec 20, 2004
Decision dateFeb 1, 2005

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Questionnaires Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal History on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Foreign Influence Concerns Related to non-U.S. Citizen Spouses Under Guideline B

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's wife is a citizen of the Czech Republic.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Czech Republic	Unknown	—	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—
1.b	Applicant's wife does not intend to become a U.S. citizen.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Czech Republic	Unknown	—	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—
1.c	Applicant and his wife may move to the Czech Republic.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Czech Republic	Unknown	—	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—
1.d	Applicant's wife's mother, father, and sister are citizen residents of the Czech Republic.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Czech Republic	Unknown	—	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—
1.e	Applicant traveled to the Czech Republic in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Czech Republic	Unknown	—	(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant's wife is a citizen of the Czech Republic.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Czech Republic

Unknown

—

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

1.b

Applicant's wife does not intend to become a U.S. citizen.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Czech Republic

Unknown

—

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

1.c

Applicant and his wife may move to the Czech Republic.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Czech Republic

Unknown

—

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

1.d

Applicant's wife's mother, father, and sister are citizen residents of the Czech Republic.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Czech Republic

Unknown

—

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

1.e

Applicant traveled to the Czech Republic in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Czech Republic

Unknown

—

(c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified his QNSP by denying he had any unpaid judgments pending against him	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	failed to list all of his alcohol related offenses	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.c	failed to disclose other offenses for which he had been arrested, charged or convicted	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant falsified his QNSP by denying he had any unpaid judgments pending against him

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

—

Denied

—

2.b

failed to list all of his alcohol related offenses

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.c

failed to disclose other offenses for which he had been arrested, charged or convicted

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by omitting relevant and material information from his QNSP	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by omitting relevant and material information from his QNSP

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

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