ISCR Case 03-15805.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-15805.h1

deniedNov 25, 2005· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old applicant seeking a security clearance for a federal contractor was DENIED due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including a misdemeanor theft charge for attempting to steal video games, resulting in an 18-month probationary period and $55.00 in court costs. He was also charged with writing bad checks for an amount less than $300.00 in 1998, which he denied, claiming his checkbook was stolen, and paid court costs. In July 2002, he was arrested and found guilty of driving while impaired by alcohol, receiving a 60-day suspended jail sentence and 12 months of probation.

A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to disclose prior arrests on two security clearance applications. This omission was considered a deliberate falsification of material facts, violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The judge found the applicant's claim of forgetfulness regarding these omissions not credible.

Ultimately, the applicant's criminal history, coupled with the intentional failure to disclose this information on official forms, raised unmitigated security concerns related to both his personal and criminal conduct, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant had multiple criminal convictions, including theft and driving while impaired.
He failed to disclose relevant criminal history on two security clearance applications, which was deemed intentional.
The judge found the applicant's explanation for omissions not credible.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission 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

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information VoluntarilyApplicant had multiple opportunities to disclose accurate information but failed to do so.
E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the FactsApplicant did not correct the omissions prior to the hearing.

Key Rule Quoted

“"It should be obvious that no one has a right to a security clearance"”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 31, 2005
Answer filedJun 1, 2005
Hearing heldOct 20, 2005
Decision dateNov 25, 2005

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Credibility Assessments in Security Clearance Cases Regarding Omissions on 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	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	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

The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.b

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	Applicant was arrested after attempting to steal video games with his friends. He was charged with misdemeanor Theft-Less than $300.00. He was granted Probation Before Judgment, served 18-month probationary period, and paid $55.00 in court costs.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	In 1998, Applicant was charged with writing bad checks for an amount less than $300.00. Applicant denied the charges claiming his checkbook had been stolen. He paid the court costs.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	In July 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while impaired by alcohol. He was found guilty and sentenced to jail for 60 days. The sentence was suspended for five years and he was placed on probation for 12 months.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence
1.d	Applicant falsified his security clearance applications in violation of federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested after attempting to steal video games with his friends. He was charged with misdemeanor Theft-Less than $300.00. He was granted Probation Before Judgment, served 18-month probationary period, and paid $55.00 in court costs.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

—

1.b

In 1998, Applicant was charged with writing bad checks for an amount less than $300.00. Applicant denied the charges claiming his checkbook had been stolen. He paid the court costs.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

1.c

In July 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while impaired by alcohol. He was found guilty and sentenced to jail for 60 days. The sentence was suspended for five years and he was placed on probation for 12 months.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

Documented

Rehabilitation Evidence

1.d

Applicant falsified his security clearance applications in violation of federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

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