ISCR Case 03-25228.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-25228.h1

deniedFeb 27, 2006· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 56-year-old senior principal systems engineer with military service was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a long history of providing false information about his substance abuse in security clearance documents and interviews, which the judge found to be repeated and deliberate falsifications.

Specifically, the applicant repeatedly provided false information concerning controlled substance abuse from 1971 until 2004. These false statements were made in sworn documents submitted in September 1995, September 2002, and May 2004, after he had been advised of criminal penalties for making false statements. He also provided false information in an unsigned security clearance document and during two interviews with a DoD investigator. The applicant explained his actions by stating he felt compelled to maintain a lie he originated in the Marine Corps to retain his clearance, and he did not correct the false information until confronted with a polygraph examination in May 2004.

Additionally, the applicant had two criminal convictions: driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding in September 1999, resulting in a $870 fine, one year probation, and alcohol counseling; and domestic violence/assault in July 1996, leading to one year probation, 12 hours of community service, and domestic violence counseling. The applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate these issues, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant repeatedly provided false information regarding his substance abuse over a period of more than 30 years.
He maintained his falsehoods even when under the threat of criminal penalties for making false statements.
The applicant did not present sufficient evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters
J1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
J2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“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 issuedFeb 8, 2005
Answer filedFeb 25, 2005
Hearing heldOct 24, 2005
Decision dateFeb 27, 2006

Cite For

Repeated and Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Documents Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Mitigation in Security Clearance Cases

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
1.a	From 1971 until 2004, Applicant repeatedly and deliberately provided false information concerning his abuse of controlled substances in security clearance documents he submitted and interviews he provided.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.b	Applicant executed and swore to documents he submitted in September 1995, September 2002, and May 2004. Each of those sworn statements was made after Applicant had been advised they were being made subject to the criminal penalties provided for by 18 U.S.C. § 1001 making it a crime for him to make knowing and wilful false statements in those documents.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.c	Applicant provided false information in an unsigned and undated security clearance document he submitted, and during the course of two interviews with a DoD investigator.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.d	Applicant's explanation for repeatedly and deliberately providing false information is that he believed he had to continue in the lie he told while in the Marine Corps if he were to be allowed to retain a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant did nothing to correct the false information he provided until he was confronted with the prospect of a polygraph examination in May 2004.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

From 1971 until 2004, Applicant repeatedly and deliberately provided false information concerning his abuse of controlled substances in security clearance documents he submitted and interviews he provided.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

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

—

1.b

Applicant executed and swore to documents he submitted in September 1995, September 2002, and May 2004. Each of those sworn statements was made after Applicant had been advised they were being made subject to the criminal penalties provided for by 18 U.S.C. § 1001 making it a crime for him to make knowing and wilful false statements in those documents.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

Applicant provided false information in an unsigned and undated security clearance document he submitted, and during the course of two interviews with a DoD investigator.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

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

—

1.d

Applicant's explanation for repeatedly and deliberately providing false information is that he believed he had to continue in the lie he told while in the Marine Corps if he were to be allowed to retain a security clearance.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant did nothing to correct the false information he provided until he was confronted with the prospect of a polygraph examination in May 2004.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding in September 1999. He was sentenced to probation for one year, ordered to pay fines and costs totaling $870.00, and required to attend alcohol counseling sessions. His blood alcohol concentration at the time of arrest was 0.17.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	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 convicted of domestic violence/assault in July 1996 for an incident involving his then teenage stepson. He was sentenced to probation for one year, ordered to perform 12 hours community service work, and required to attend domestic violence counseling.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding in September 1999. He was sentenced to probation for one year, ordered to pay fines and costs totaling $870.00, and required to attend alcohol counseling sessions. His blood alcohol concentration at the time of arrest was 0.17.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

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 convicted of domestic violence/assault in July 1996 for an incident involving his then teenage stepson. He was sentenced to probation for one year, ordered to perform 12 hours community service work, and required to attend domestic violence counseling.

Against Applicant

Domestic Violence

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

—

2.c

specific text not stated in this decision

Against 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