ISCR Case 03-19060.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-19060.h1

deniedMar 23, 2006· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old defense contractor 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 a history of criminal behavior and a failure to disclose relevant information in his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant was found to have provided false or misleading information in his SF 86 and a subsequent statement regarding the reason for his 2001 termination and the circumstances leading to a theft conviction. His criminal record included a 1995 disorderly conduct conviction, a 1998 bad check incident, and a 2001 theft conviction for fraudulent refunds while employed in retail, which resulted in probation, restitution, fines, and court costs. Additionally, he was accused of sexually molesting his nephew in 2000, though this allegation was not substantiated. The applicant also committed criminal offenses by knowingly providing false information in his 2002 SF 86 and a 2003 statement to a DSS Special Agent.

Regarding financial concerns, the applicant had several debts, including one from an automobile repossession. He negotiated reduced settlements and made regular payments on two other debts, and one account was fully satisfied by a tax refund seizure. He also paid down most of a combined debt to a creditor. However, the judge ultimately found that the applicant's criminal conduct and deliberate omissions in his application raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including theft and disorderly conduct.
He failed to fully disclose the circumstances of his termination from employment and related criminal conduct in his security clearance application.
The applicant provided false information in his security clearance application and during an interview with a security official.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1appliedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
DC 2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
DC 2appliedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
DC 3appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Key Rule Quoted

“No one has a right to a security clearance and "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2004
Answer filedFeb 25, 2005
Hearing heldOct 26, 2005
Decision dateMar 23, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on a History of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Failure to Disclose Relevant Information Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant failed to fully disclose the circumstances of his being fired from a job in 2001 and the related criminal conduct in a security clearance application he submitted in 2002 and in a statement he provided in 2003.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.b	The applicant deliberately provided false and/or misleading information in the SF 86 concerning the reason he was fired in 2001, and the circumstances that led up to his theft conviction.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND 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	—	—
3.c–3.e	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant failed to fully disclose the circumstances of his being fired from a job in 2001 and the related criminal conduct in a security clearance application he submitted in 2002 and in a statement he provided in 2003.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

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

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

—

3.b

The applicant deliberately provided false and/or misleading information in the SF 86 concerning the reason he was fired in 2001, and the circumstances that led up to his theft conviction.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND 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

—

3.c–3.e

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.a resulted from a deficit owing after an automobile was repossessed. $3,116	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Applicant submitted documentary evidence indicating he had negotiated a reduced settlement on the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.b and had made regular payments on this debt between July 2003 and August 2004, reducing the amount owing from $7,650.00 to $5,890.00. $5,890	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Settlement
1.c	Applicant submitted proof he had negotiated a reduced settlement on the credit card debt alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.c, and has been making regular payments on this account since July 2004.	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Settlement
1.d	The account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d was satisfied in full as of February 25, 2005, by means of the government seizing a portion of an income tax refund owing to Applicant and applying it to payment of this debt.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.e	Applicant has paid the creditor listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f all but $70.00 of the total amount owing on those two debts plus two additional debts owing to that creditor that were not listed in the SOR.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.f–1.g	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

The debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.a resulted from a deficit owing after an automobile was repossessed.

$3,116

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.b

Applicant submitted documentary evidence indicating he had negotiated a reduced settlement on the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.b and had made regular payments on this debt between July 2003 and August 2004, reducing the amount owing from $7,650.00 to $5,890.00.

$5,890

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Settlement

1.c

Applicant submitted proof he had negotiated a reduced settlement on the credit card debt alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.c, and has been making regular payments on this account since July 2004.

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Settlement

1.d

The account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d was satisfied in full as of February 25, 2005, by means of the government seizing a portion of an income tax refund owing to Applicant and applying it to payment of this debt.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.e

Applicant has paid the creditor listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f all but $70.00 of the total amount owing on those two debts plus two additional debts owing to that creditor that were not listed in the SOR.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.f–1.g

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was convicted of Disorderly Conduct in November 1995, and was sentenced to six months unsupervised probation. The charge resulted from a pushing and shoving match Applicant engaged in with his ex-wife during the course of an argument.	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	—	—
2.b	Applicant was notified by mail that he had issued a bad check in January 1998, and was required to report to the local police station. He did as directed and was required to pay a fine and attend a class, although it is unclear whether he ever actually appeared in court.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.c	Applicant was convicted of Theft in February 2001, and placed on 12 months probation. He was also required to make restitution in the amount of $662.62, and to pay fines and court costs in the amount of $270.00. This conviction resulted from Applicant's actions in ringing up fraudulent refunds while employed in a retail store and stealing the money that was refunded.	For 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	—	—
2.d	Applicant was accused of sexually molesting his three-year-old nephew in February 2000. The police conducted an investigation of the allegation after which the local prosecutor's office declined to issue a complaint. Applicant denies this allegation, and there is insufficient record evidence to substantiate it.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.e	In addition to the offenses Applicant has been convicted of, he also committed criminal offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 when he knowingly and willfully provided false information in the SF 86 he submitted in December 2002, and in the statement he made to a SA from the DSS in February 2003.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(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

2.a

Applicant was convicted of Disorderly Conduct in November 1995, and was sentenced to six months unsupervised probation. The charge resulted from a pushing and shoving match Applicant engaged in with his ex-wife during the course of an argument.

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

—

2.b

Applicant was notified by mail that he had issued a bad check in January 1998, and was required to report to the local police station. He did as directed and was required to pay a fine and attend a class, although it is unclear whether he ever actually appeared in court.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

2.c

Applicant was convicted of Theft in February 2001, and placed on 12 months probation. He was also required to make restitution in the amount of $662.62, and to pay fines and court costs in the amount of $270.00. This conviction resulted from Applicant's actions in ringing up fraudulent refunds while employed in a retail store and stealing the money that was refunded.

For 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

—

2.d

Applicant was accused of sexually molesting his three-year-old nephew in February 2000. The police conducted an investigation of the allegation after which the local prosecutor's office declined to issue a complaint. Applicant denies this allegation, and there is insufficient record evidence to substantiate it.

Against Applicant

Sexual Offense Criminal

—

Denied

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

—

2.e

In addition to the offenses Applicant has been convicted of, he also committed criminal offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 when he knowingly and willfully provided false information in the SF 86 he submitted in December 2002, and in the statement he made to a SA from the DSS in February 2003.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(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