ISCR Case 03-09694.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-09694.h1

deniedNov 30, 2006· Hon. Joan Caton Anthony· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old manager for a government contractor was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct) due to repeated deliberate falsifications on security clearance applications and during interviews. The judge found that the applicant's consistent dishonesty and failure to disclose relevant information presented significant security concerns.

Specifically, the applicant falsified information on an SF-85P by denying arrests or convictions in the past seven years, despite an arrest for Indecent Liberties with a Child in 1993. He also falsely stated on an SF-86 that he had never been charged with a felony, omitting a 1993 Indecent Exposure charge. Furthermore, he provided false sworn statements to an investigator in 2004, denying illegal drug use in the past seven years and claiming he never sent offensive work emails, when he had used marijuana and sent vulgar emails.

During an interview, the applicant initially failed to disclose all arrests, only revealing a 1980 Criminal Trespass arrest after further questioning and being advised of U.S.C. §1001, while still omitting a 1974 Indecent Exposure arrest. These actions, coupled with a 2001 verbal reprimand from his employer for misconduct, demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor, leading to the denial of his clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately falsified material facts on security clearance applications.
He provided false or misleading information during interviews regarding his drug use and criminal history.
The applicant's conduct demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor, raising security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.1raisedDisqualifying Condition 1Reliable unfavorable information about Applicant's conduct in the workplace was provided by former employers and co-workers.
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDisqualifying Condition 2His failure to answer four questions completely, truthfully, and correctly on two security clearance applications raises a security concern.
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDisqualifying Condition 3His deliberate false statements to investigators in connection with a personal security or trustworthiness determination raise concerns.
E2.A5.1.2.4raisedDisqualifying Condition 4His concealment of information he considered embarrassing or professionally damaging could make him vulnerable to coercion and blackmail.
E2.A5.1.2.5raisedDisqualifying Condition 5His conduct suggests a pattern of dishonesty or rule violation.
J2.A1raisedDisqualifying Condition 1The applicant's deliberate falsifications constituted felonious conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 14, 2005
Answer filedMar 7, 2005
Hearing heldJuly 14, 2006 and September 20, 2006Hearing reconvened after initial session.
Decision dateNov 30, 2006

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Pattern of Dishonesty Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline J

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
1.c	Applicant falsified material facts on a SF-85P he executed by denying, in his response to Question 20, he had been arrested, charged, or convicted of any offense in the past seven years, when, in fact, he had been arrested for Indecent Liberties with a Child on April 11, 1993.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant falsified material facts in a signed sworn statement, dated September 16, 2004, to an authorized investigator, by stating he had not used any illegal drugs, to include marijuana, in the past seven years and deliberately failed to disclose the marijuana use.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant received a verbal reprimand in February 2001 from his employer as the result of complaints about his conduct.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant falsified material facts on the SF-86 he executed on July 10, 2002, by answering "no" to Question 21, which asked if he had ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense, when, in fact, he deliberately failed to list that he had been charged with the felony offense of Indecent Exposure on April 11, 1993.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant falsified material facts in a signed, sworn statement made on September 16, 2004, to an authorized DSS investigator by stating that when he worked for Employer B he never sent an e-mail at work that could be considered offensive by any of his co-workers, whereas, in fact, he sent e-mails to co-workers that contained four-letter vulgarities related to sex.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant falsified material facts in an interview with an authorized DSS investigator on about September 16, 2004, when, after being questioned about his arrest in 1993, he stated he had not been arrested on any other occasions and, thereafter, after additional questioning and after being advised of the applicability of U.S.C. §1001, Applicant revealed his arrest for Criminal Trespass in 1980 and deliberately failed to reveal his arrest for Indecent Exposure in 1974.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.c

Applicant falsified material facts on a SF-85P he executed by denying, in his response to Question 20, he had been arrested, charged, or convicted of any offense in the past seven years, when, in fact, he had been arrested for Indecent Liberties with a Child on April 11, 1993.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant falsified material facts in a signed sworn statement, dated September 16, 2004, to an authorized investigator, by stating he had not used any illegal drugs, to include marijuana, in the past seven years and deliberately failed to disclose the marijuana use.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

1.e

Applicant received a verbal reprimand in February 2001 from his employer as the result of complaints about his conduct.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant falsified material facts on the SF-86 he executed on July 10, 2002, by answering "no" to Question 21, which asked if he had ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense, when, in fact, he deliberately failed to list that he had been charged with the felony offense of Indecent Exposure on April 11, 1993.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

1.g

Applicant falsified material facts in a signed, sworn statement made on September 16, 2004, to an authorized DSS investigator by stating that when he worked for Employer B he never sent an e-mail at work that could be considered offensive by any of his co-workers, whereas, in fact, he sent e-mails to co-workers that contained four-letter vulgarities related to sex.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

1.h

Applicant falsified material facts in an interview with an authorized DSS investigator on about September 16, 2004, when, after being questioned about his arrest in 1993, he stated he had not been arrested on any other occasions and, thereafter, after additional questioning and after being advised of the applicability of U.S.C. §1001, Applicant revealed his arrest for Criminal Trespass in 1980 and deliberately failed to reveal his arrest for Indecent Exposure in 1974.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a–2.d

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

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES