ISCR Case 03-17692.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-17692.h1

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

Summary

A 44-year-old defense contractor technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from six arrests for criminal conduct between 1982 and 1999, as well as deliberate omissions regarding these arrests on his security clearance application and during interviews.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose arrests for marijuana possession in 1999, 1989, and 1982. Other undisclosed incidents included contempt of court in 1989, possession of a weapon and prohibited narcotic equipment in 1985, and leaving the scene of an accident, driving on a suspended license, and careless driving in 1983. These omissions were deemed deliberate, indicating a lack of candor and trustworthiness, particularly after the applicant had been informed by his supervisor about the requirement to disclose all relevant arrests.

The judge concluded that the applicant's rationale for the omissions was insufficient and that his history of criminal conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately omitted multiple arrests from his security clearance application and interviews with DSS, indicating a lack of candor and trustworthiness.
The applicant's rationale for omissions was deemed insufficient after being informed by his boss about the requirement to disclose all relevant arrests, undermining his credibility.
The applicant's history of criminal conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

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 issuedDec 28, 2004
Answer filed—Applicant admitted allegations with explanation.
Hearing heldMar 25, 2005
Decision dateAug 31, 2005

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Processes

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	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Criminal Conduct	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant deliberately omitted information about his criminal conduct when he completed a security clearance application (SF 86) and when he was interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) special agent.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	Applicant failed to disclose his drug-related arrests from 1989, 1985, and 1982 during his security clearance application and interviews.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Criminal Conduct

Unknown

—

2.b

Applicant deliberately omitted information about his criminal conduct when he completed a security clearance application (SF 86) and when he was interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) special agent.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.c

Applicant failed to disclose his drug-related arrests from 1989, 1985, and 1982 during his security clearance application and interviews.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Possession of marijuana in 1999	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Possession of marijuana in 1989	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Contempt of court for failing to appear in court for a moving violation in December 1989	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Possession of a weapon and carrying prohibited narcotic equipment in 1985	For Applicant	Weapons Offense	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Leaving the scene of an accident, driving on a suspended license, and careless driving in 1983	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Possession of marijuana in 1982	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Possession of marijuana in 1999

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.b

Possession of marijuana in 1989

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.c

Contempt of court for failing to appear in court for a moving violation in December 1989

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.d

Possession of a weapon and carrying prohibited narcotic equipment in 1985

For Applicant

Weapons Offense

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.e

Leaving the scene of an accident, driving on a suspended license, and careless driving in 1983

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.f

Possession of marijuana in 1982

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.g

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

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