CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-17888.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-17888.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-17888.h1

deniedJul 19, 2005· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old facility support associate was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's deliberate falsification of his security clearance application, his extensive criminal history, and unresolved financial issues.

The applicant's criminal record included a 1978 DWI arrest, disorderly conduct arrests in 1982 and 1989 (both dropped), and arrests in 1990 for possessing stolen mail (one dismissed, one resulting in a forgery plea and three years probation). Further arrests included larceny in 1994 (nolle prossed), shoplifting in 1996 (dismissed), and theft in 1997, which led to a bench warrant for failure to appear. Crucially, the applicant concealed a 1993 arrest for cocaine possession and his history of cocaine abuse from 1992 to 1997.

Financially, the applicant had an outstanding $2,500 judgment from 1998 and three delinquent accounts totaling over $1,500. Despite continuous employment since December 2001, he took no steps to address these past due debts. The judge concluded that the applicant's deliberate omissions and failure to resolve financial issues demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately falsified his security clearance application by omitting his criminal history, drug use, and financial difficulties.
The applicant's extensive criminal history and financial irresponsibility raised serious concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant did not take steps to address his past due debts despite being employed since December 2001.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedFinancial Considerations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 13, 2004
Answer filedMar 8, 2004
Hearing heldJan 10, 2005
Decision dateJul 19, 2005

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline J
Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F

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 all allegations under Guideline E, citing deliberate falsification of his security clearance application and a lack of candor regarding his criminal history and financial difficulties. The applicant's conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.f	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	FOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct		—	—	—

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's financial irresponsibility, including an outstanding judgment and multiple delinquent accounts, raised significant security concerns under Guideline F. The applicant did not take adequate steps to address these debts after regaining employment, leading to a decision against granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant had an outstanding $2,500.00 judgment from 1998 $2,500	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	Applicant had three delinquent accounts totaling over $1,500.00 $1,500	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	Applicant did not take any steps to address his past due accounts despite continued employment since December 2001	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.d	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, citing a substantial criminal history that included multiple arrests and a conviction for forgery. The applicant's deliberate concealment of his criminal record and substance abuse history further disqualified him from obtaining a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested for DWI in 1978.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	He was arrested for disorderly conduct in April 1982 and November 1989. Both charges were ultimately dropped.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	He was arrested in July 1990 for possessing stolen mail. The charge was later dismissed.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d	He was arrested in August 1990 for possessing stolen mail, trespass, and forgery. On the advice of counsel, he later pled to the forgery charge and received three years probation.	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.e	In August 1994, Applicant was charged with larceny of a $35.00 watch from a department store. The charge was nolle prossed.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.f	In December 1996, Applicant was arrested for shoplifting. The charge was later dismissed.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.g	In October 1997, Applicant was arrested for theft under $300.00 and later had a bench warrant issued when he failed to appear for his court date.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.h	Applicant concealed a 1993 arrest for possession of cocaine.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	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.i	He also concealed his extensive history of cocaine abuse from 1992-1997.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	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: Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct; Financial DIGEST: Applicant's criminal conduct, deliberate falsification of his 2 January 2002 security clearance application, and his financial irresponsibility disqualify him for a security clearance. Clearance denied. CASENO: 03-17888.h1 DATE: 07/19/2005 DATE: July 19, 2005 In Re:

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 03-17888

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR.

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's criminal conduct, deliberate falsification of his 2 January 2002 security clearance application, and his financial irresponsibility disqualify him for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

Applicant challenges the 13 February 2004 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending denial or revocation of his clearance because of criminal conduct, personal conduct, and financial considerations. (1) Applicant answered the SOR on 8 March 2004 and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 10 September 2004 and I convened a hearing on 10 January 2005. DOHA received the transcript 18 January 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the Guideline J allegations, except for 1.h., the Guideline E allegations, except for 2.f., and the Guideline F allegations; accordingly, I incorporate his admissions as findings of fact. He is a 55-year-old facility support associate employed by a defense contractor since December 2001. He has not previously had a clearance.

When Applicant applied for an industrial clearance in January 2002, he answered "no" to a series of questions requiring him to disclose his criminal record (questions 21-26), any drug or alcohol abuse (questions 27-29), and any adverse financial history (questions 33-39). In fact, he had a substantial criminal history, some of which was required to be reported, an extensive drug abuse history, all of which was required to be reported, and was currently experiencing financial difficulties. Applicant's criminal involvement covers a period of nearly 20 years, 1978-1997. He was arrested for DWI in 1978. (2) He was arrested for disorderly conduct in April 1982 and November 1989. Both charges were ultimately dropped. He was arrested in July 1990 for possessing stolen mail (GE 3). The charge was later dismissed. He was arrested in August 1990 for possessing stolen mail, trespass, and forgery. (3) On the advice of counsel, he later pled to the forgery charge and received three years probation (GE 3).

In August 1994, Applicant was charged with larceny of a $35.00 watch from a department store. The charge was nolle prossed (GE 2, 3). In December 1996, Applicant was arrested for shoplifting. The charge was later dismissed. In October 1997, Applicant was arrested for theft under $300.00 and later had a bench warrant issued when he failed to appear for his court date (GE 6). (4)

In addition to concealing his 1978 DWI arrest, Applicant concealed a 1993 arrest for possession of cocaine (GE 5). (5) He also concealed his extensive history of cocaine abuse from 1992-1997. (6) Furthermore, when Applicant completed his clearance application, he had an outstanding $2,500.00 judgment from 1998, (7) and three delinquent accounts totaling over $1,500.00. (8)

Applicant admitted concealing his criminal arrest record because he thought revealing it would keep him from getting his clearance and cost him his job (GE 5). However, he denied deliberately omitting his drug and alcohol abuse history and his financial difficulties. He thinks he misread the drug questions and overlooked the financial questions entirely.

Applicant attributes his financial difficulties to a lengthy period of unemployment he experience between January 1996 and March 1998. However, he has not taken any steps to address his past due accounts despite continued employment in his current job since December 2001.

Applicant's character references (AE A) consider him an honest individual and a trustworthy employee. Neither appears to be aware of the allegations of the SOR.

POLICIES

The Directive, Enclosure 2 lists adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an Applicant's suitability for access to classified information. Administrative Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative issue fairly raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3. of the Directive. The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guidelines are Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

BURDEN OF PROOF

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an Applicant's security clearance. The government must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government's case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The "clearly consistent with the national interest" standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant's suitability for access in favor of the government. (9)

CONCLUSION

The government established a Guideline J case under disqualifying conditions 1 and 2, (10) and Applicant did not mitigate the conduct. His spate of drug and alcohol offenses, disorderly conduct offenses, and petty larceny and shoplifting offenses cast serious question on his judgment and reliability notwithstanding the last of these offenses occurred in 1997. In 2002, he deliberately concealed his criminal record, drug use, and financial problems from the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001. I resolve Guideline J against Applicant. The Government established a Guideline E case under disqualifying condition 2, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant provided false answers to six different questions on his clearance application. His conduct demonstrates a lack of candor required of cleared personnel and suggests he is willing to put his personal needs ahead of legitimate government interests. The government has an interest in examining all relevant and material adverse information about an applicant before making a clearance decision, and relies on applicants to truthfully disclose that adverse information. Further, an applicant's willingness to report adverse information about himself provides some indication of his willingness to report inadvertent security violations or other security concerns in the future, something the government relies on in order to perform damage assessments and limit the compromise of classified information. I resolve Guideline E against Applicant.

The Government established a Guideline F case under disqualifying conditions 1 and 3, (12)and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Although his two-years' unemployment from 1996-1998 was beyond his control, (13) he has taken no steps to address the past due debts after regaining full time employment. This delay does not demonstrate good faith in addressing his debts. (14) I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline J: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant Subparagraph d: Against the Applicant Subparagraph e: Against the Applicant Subparagraph f: Against the Applicant Subparagraph g: Against the Applicant Subparagraph h: Against the Applicant Subparagraph i: Against the Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant Subparagraph d: Against the Applicant Subparagraph e: Against the Applicant Subparagraph f: Against the Applicant

Paragraph 3. Guideline F: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant Subparagraph d: 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.

John G. Metz, Jr. Administrative Judge 1. Required by Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive). 2. Required to be disclosed in response to question 24 (drug and alcohol arrests). 3. Required to be disclosed in response to question 21 (felony arrests/charges/convictions). 4. Both the December 1996 and October 1997 arrests were required to be disclosed in response to question 26 (other arrests within the last 7 years). 5. Required to be disclosed in response to question 24 (drug or alcohol arrests). 6. Required to be disclosed in response to question 27 (illegal drug use within the last 7 years), or at least the portion of coke abuse from 1995-1997. 7. Required to be disclosed in response to question 37 (unpaid judgments). 8. Required to be disclosed in response to questions 38 and 39 (90/180 day delinquent accounts). 9. See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 10. E2.A10.1.2.1. Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged; E2.A10.1.2.2. A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses. 11. 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, . . . [or] determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .; 12. E2.A6.1.2.1. A history of not meeting financial obligations; E2.A6.1.2.3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. 13. E2.A6.1.3.3. The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g. loss of employment. . . ). 14. E2.A6.1.3.6. The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel