CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-16160.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-16160.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-16160.h1

deniedFeb 15, 2005· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from multiple instances of intentional falsification of material facts on government security questionnaires and during interviews with Department of Defense investigators.

Specifically, the applicant intentionally provided false information regarding her use of illegal drugs on two security forms dated March 5, 1997, and March 6, 1997. She also provided false, material information about her involvement with marijuana and/or nitrous oxide during a June 12, 2000 Security Clearance Application and an April 9, 2002 interview with the Defense Security Service. These intentional falsifications were deemed to constitute felonies under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

The judge found that the recency and seriousness of this felonious conduct precluded the application of any mitigating factors under Guideline J. The intentional dishonesty and the extent of the falsifications prevented a finding of reliability in the applicant's truthfulness with the Government, leading to the denial of her security clearance request.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant intentionally falsified information on multiple security questionnaires and during interviews with DoD investigators.
The recency and extent of the applicant's falsifications preclude a finding of reliability in her truthfulness with the Government.
No mitigating conditions were applicable due to the serious nature of the applicant's conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information to an Investigator
E2.A5.1.2.5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
J1raisedAny Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
J2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 4, 2004
Answer filedJun 17, 2004
Hearing heldFeb 3, 2005
Decision dateFeb 15, 2005

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Information as a Basis for Denial Under Guideline E
Impact of Recency and Seriousness of Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Mitigating Conditions in Cases of Deliberate Dishonesty

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 personal conduct concerns due to intentional falsifications of material facts during interviews and on security questionnaires. The applicant's security clearance request was denied based on these findings.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1	Applicant intentionally falsified information about her use of illegal drugs on two separate security forms used by the Government to assess her security-worthiness.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2	Applicant provided false, material information about her involvement with marijuana and/or nitrous oxide to the Government on the following documents and during the following interview: Security Screening Questionnaire dated March 5, 1997; Security Screening Questionnaire dated March 6, 1997; June 12, 2000 SCA; April 9, 2002 interview with the DSS.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

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 both allegations under Guideline J, determining that her intentional falsifications of material facts constituted criminal conduct. The recency and seriousness of her actions precluded any mitigating factors, leading to a denial of her security clearance request.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts, which constitute felonies under 18 U.S.C. 1001, require application of Disqualifying Condition 1 (any criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged) and Disqualifying Condition 2 (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses).	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	The recency and seriousness of applicant's felonious conduct precludes application of any mitigating factors under Guideline J, and requires a denial of her security clearance request.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant's falsifications of material facts during an interview with DoD investigators, on a Security Clearance Application (SCA), and on two other security questionnaires, requires a denial of her security clearance request. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 03-16160.h1

DATE: 02/15/2005

DATE: February 15, 2005

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 03-16160

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's falsifications of material facts during an interview with DoD investigators, on a Security Clearance Application (SCA), and on two other security questionnaires, requires a denial of her security clearance request. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On June 4, 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, 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 June 17, 2004. The case was assigned to the undersigned on August 12, 2004. A Notice of Hearing was issued on January 5, 2005, and the hearing was held on February 3, 2005. The transcript was received on February 15, 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 28 year old engineer. She has worked for the same defense contractor since May 2000.

Applicant used marijuana from 1992 to at approximately August 1994. Most of her use occurred when she was in High School; however, she used it a "handful of times" while in college in 1994 (TR at 45-46). She used nitrous oxide once in the summer of 1992. (1) In 1996, applicant was interviewed for a job with a Government agency. During the interview she stated that she had used marijuana eighty times. Applicant has since explained that she was young at the time, inexperienced, and in essence exaggerated the number of times she used it in order to finish with the interview.

In March 1997, applicant intentionally falsified information about her use of illegal drugs on two separate security forms used by the Government to assess her security-worthiness. On one form (Exhibit 3), she lied when she denied that she had ever experimented with illegal drugs, including marijuana. On the second form (Exhibit 4), she lied when she denied using any illegal drug during the previous five years. As noted above, she had used marijuana and nitrous oxide during the previous five years.

In June 2000, applicant executed an SCA. In response to Question 27, which asked if she had used marijuana since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, applicant stated "no." Applicant admits that her response was false, but testified that she did not intentionally provide the false information. She testified that she had "completely forgot" about her marijuana use while in college (TR at 46-47). Applicant's denial is not credible for at least three reasons. First, applicant admitted in a signed, sworn statement that she gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in April 2002 (Exhibit 2, page 7) that she "knew [she] was being dishonest when [she] deliberately answered no pertaining to drug use on [her] security questionnaire." Second, although most of her marijuana use may have occurred while she was in High School, she used it enough times in college that it is highly unlikely she would not have remembered it when completing the SCA. Third, applicant has a history of dishonesty on the issue of her drug use when dealing with the Government.

During her interview with the DSS on April 9, 2002, applicant initially intentionally provided false, material information about her drug use. Specifically, when first questioned, applicant significantly downplayed the number of times she used marijuana, and she denied any other illegal drug use.

Letters from various people who know applicant well, including friends, coworkers, and her program manager, were admitted into evidence (Exhibits A, C, D, E, F, and G). These letters establish that applicant is considered by these individuals to be a very trustworthy person who performs well at her job.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant provided false, material information about her involvement with marijuana and/or nitrous oxide to the Government on the following documents and during the following interview: 1. Security Screening Questionnaire dated March 5, 1997;

2. Security Screening Questionnaire dated March 6, 1997;

3. June 12, 2000 SCA;

4. April 9, 2002 interview with the DSS.

These intentional falsifications require 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, 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), Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.3 (deliberately proving false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator . . . in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination), and Disqualifying Condition 5 (a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations).

I have considered the very favorable character letters applicant offered into evidence. I cannot give much weight to these letters, however, because there is no evidence that the authors were aware of applicant's multiple falsifications of material facts when they wrote their letters.

The recency and extent of applicant's intentional falsifications preclude a finding that she can now be relied upon to be truthful with the Government. No itigating Conditions are applicable. Based on the foregoing, the Personal Conduct Guideline is found against applicant.

With respect to the Criminal Conduct guideline, applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts, which constitute felonies under 18 U.S.C. 1001, require application of Disqualifying Condition 1 (any criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged) and Disqualifying Condition 2 (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses). The recency and seriousness of applicant's felonious conduct precludes application of any mitigating factors under Guideline J, and requires a denial of her security clearance request.

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. Although there is conflicting evidence concerning when she used nitrous oxide, I found her testimony that she used it in the summer of 1992 to be credible and worthy of belief (TR at 47-48).

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Campbell, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Eduardo Leaton, Jr. file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-16160.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:24:46 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-16160.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:24:46 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-16160.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:24:46 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-16160.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:24:46 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-16160.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:24:46 PM]