ISCR Case 03-16179.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-16179.h1

deniedDec 31, 2005· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old female applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of criminal conduct and deliberate omissions on her security clearance application (SF 86).

The applicant had at least nine criminal convictions between 1991 and 1998. These included a 1991 felony conviction for causing bodily injury with intent to maim, later reduced to a misdemeanor, for which she received a suspended 12-month jail sentence and was ordered to pay restitution and court costs. She was jailed in 1993 for failing to pay as ordered. In 1991, she was convicted of shoplifting and received a suspended 90-day jail sentence. Also in 1991, she was convicted of a felony for writing a check with insufficient funds, receiving a suspended 12-month jail sentence and court costs, and was later jailed for non-payment. In December 1991, she was found guilty of five counts of uttering checks with intent to defraud, receiving five suspended two-year jail sentences. She violated the terms of this suspended sentence by committing additional offenses, including shoplifting, concealing merchandise, and writing bad checks, leading to four years in state prison starting in February 1994. In 1992, she was convicted of failure to appear and fined $75. In 1998, she was charged with threatening to bomb or burn a mobile home, a felony, which was reduced to harassment over the phone, with judgment withheld.

The applicant deliberately omitted several of these incidents from her SF 86, including the 1998 charge involving threats, the November 1991 bad check charge, and the original May 1991 felony charge of causing bodily injury with intent to maim. The clearance was denied because of her extensive criminal history, including a felony conviction that resulted in over one year of jail time, and her intentional failure to disclose significant criminal history on her application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of at least nine criminal convictions from 1991 to 1998, including a felony charge.
Applicant served more than one year in jail for a felony conviction, barring her from holding a clearance under federal law.
Applicant intentionally omitted significant criminal history from her SF 86 application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1appliedCriminal Conduct
J2appliedCriminal Conduct
E2appliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an Applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 19, 2004
Answer filed12/2004
Hearing heldSep 22, 2005
Decision dateDec 31, 2005

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline J Due to Extensive Criminal History
Impact of Intentional Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Statutory Prohibition Against Granting Clearance Due to Felony Convictions Under 10 U.S.C. § 986.

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	Applicant deliberately omitted relevant information about her arrest record from her application for clearance (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	Applicant failed to list the 1998 charge involving threats to burn, etc., or the November 1991 bad check charge, or the original felony charge of causing bodily injury with intent to maim in May 1991.	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 deliberately omitted relevant information about her arrest record from her application for clearance (SF 86).

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.b

Applicant failed to list the 1998 charge involving threats to burn, etc., or the November 1991 bad check charge, or the original felony charge of causing bodily injury with intent to maim in May 1991.

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
1.a	Applicant was convicted of causing bodily injury with intent to maim, a felony, but was convicted of a reduced charge of assault and battery, a misdemeanor. For this offense, she was sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended on condition of two years of good conduct. Applicant was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim and was assessed court costs, but was jailed in 1993 after six show cause orders were issued for her failure to pay as ordered (SOR ¶ 1.a).	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.b	On June 19, 1991, she was convicted of shoplifting and given a suspended jail sentence of 90 days. (SOR ¶1.b)	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	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 was also charged the same day with making threats over the phone and assault by threat (SOR ¶1.c).	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	On July 25, 1991, Applicant was charged with failure to appear. The charge was dismissed. (SOR ¶1.d).	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	On October 1, 1991, she was charged with writing checks with insufficient funds, but that charge was dismissed (SOR ¶1.e).	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	On November 27, 1991, Applicant was charged with writing a check with insufficient funds, a felony. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended, and assessed court costs. She was later jailed when she failed to pay the court costs (SOR ¶1.f).	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.g	In December 1991, Applicant was arrested and charged with five counts of unlawfully and feloniously uttering a certain check with intent to defraud. She was subsequently found guilty on all five counts and sentenced to five, two-year jail sentences, and assessed court costs. The jail sentences, which totaled 10 years, were suspended for five years on condition of good behavior. However, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g, Applicant was sent to state prison for four years as of February 1994, because she violated the terms of her suspended sentence when she committed the following offenses: (1) November 28, 1992: shoplifting (SOR ¶1.j); (2) February 11, 1993: concealing merchandise (SOR ¶1.k); (3) February 24, 1993: two counts of writing bad checks (SOR ¶1.l); (4) November 17, 1993: wrongfully possessing goods or merchandise valued at less than $200, 2d offense. (SOR ¶1.m)	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.h	On December 7, 1991, she was charged with writing checks with insufficient funds and failure to appear. These charges were dismissed (SOR ¶ 1.h).	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	On February 5, 1992, Applicant was charged with two counts of failure to appear. This time, one count was dismissed, but she was convicted of the other count and fined $75 (SOR ¶1.i).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.j	On or about October 1, 1998, Applicant was arrested at work and charged with threatening to bomb, burn, destroy, or damage a mobile home, a felony. Applicant pleaded not guilty to a reduced charge of harassment over the phone, and was ordered to have no contact with the complaining party. Judgment was withheld by the court. (SOR ¶ 1.p)	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
1.k–1.m	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—
1.n	Applicant denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.n that she was arrested and charged in September 1994 with shoplifting and three counts of passing bad checks.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.o–1.q	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was convicted of causing bodily injury with intent to maim, a felony, but was convicted of a reduced charge of assault and battery, a misdemeanor. For this offense, she was sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended on condition of two years of good conduct. Applicant was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim and was assessed court costs, but was jailed in 1993 after six show cause orders were issued for her failure to pay as ordered (SOR ¶ 1.a).

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.b

On June 19, 1991, she was convicted of shoplifting and given a suspended jail sentence of 90 days. (SOR ¶1.b)

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

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 was also charged the same day with making threats over the phone and assault by threat (SOR ¶1.c).

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.d

On July 25, 1991, Applicant was charged with failure to appear. The charge was dismissed. (SOR ¶1.d).

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

—

1.e

On October 1, 1991, she was charged with writing checks with insufficient funds, but that charge was dismissed (SOR ¶1.e).

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

—

1.f

On November 27, 1991, Applicant was charged with writing a check with insufficient funds, a felony. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended, and assessed court costs. She was later jailed when she failed to pay the court costs (SOR ¶1.f).

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

—

1.g

In December 1991, Applicant was arrested and charged with five counts of unlawfully and feloniously uttering a certain check with intent to defraud. She was subsequently found guilty on all five counts and sentenced to five, two-year jail sentences, and assessed court costs. The jail sentences, which totaled 10 years, were suspended for five years on condition of good behavior. However, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g, Applicant was sent to state prison for four years as of February 1994, because she violated the terms of her suspended sentence when she committed the following offenses: (1) November 28, 1992: shoplifting (SOR ¶1.j); (2) February 11, 1993: concealing merchandise (SOR ¶1.k); (3) February 24, 1993: two counts of writing bad checks (SOR ¶1.l); (4) November 17, 1993: wrongfully possessing goods or merchandise valued at less than $200, 2d offense. (SOR ¶1.m)

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

—

1.h

On December 7, 1991, she was charged with writing checks with insufficient funds and failure to appear. These charges were dismissed (SOR ¶ 1.h).

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

—

1.i

On February 5, 1992, Applicant was charged with two counts of failure to appear. This time, one count was dismissed, but she was convicted of the other count and fined $75 (SOR ¶1.i).

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Convicted

Denied

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

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

—

1.j

On or about October 1, 1998, Applicant was arrested at work and charged with threatening to bomb, burn, destroy, or damage a mobile home, a felony. Applicant pleaded not guilty to a reduced charge of harassment over the phone, and was ordered to have no contact with the complaining party. Judgment was withheld by the court. (SOR ¶ 1.p)

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Charged Not Convicted

Denied

—

1.k–1.m

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

1.n

Applicant denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.n that she was arrested and charged in September 1994 with shoplifting and three counts of passing bad checks.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.o–1.q

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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