ISCR Case 03-26156.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-26156.h1

deniedJan 23, 2006· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant deliberately omitted significant information from his SF 86 security clearance application. Specifically, he failed to disclose six alcohol-related criminal offenses between 1992 and 2000, three of which were charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He also omitted two other criminal offenses and two instances of completing treatment and counseling for alcohol abuse.

The applicant had a history of alcohol abuse from 1990 until October 2000, which included several alcohol-related criminal offenses. He underwent a three-month inpatient alcohol treatment program in 1997, where he was diagnosed as alcohol dependent, and entered but failed to complete court-ordered alcohol treatment from August 2000 to August 2001. The government alleged that these deliberate falsifications constituted a knowing and willful false statement to a government agency, potentially violating federal criminal law.

While the applicant successfully mitigated concerns related to his alcohol abuse, the judge determined that his deliberate dishonesty in omitting significant criminal history and treatment from his application demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness. This dishonesty was deemed too significant to overcome, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately falsified answers on his security clearance application, omitting multiple alcohol-related offenses and disciplinary actions.
The judge found that the applicant's omissions demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness, which are critical for security clearance.
Despite mitigating factors regarding alcohol abuse, the applicant's dishonesty was deemed too significant to overcome.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.1appliedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem
E2.A7.1.3.3appliedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety

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 issuedJan 31, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 20, 2005
Decision dateJan 23, 2006

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Under Guideline J
Mitigating Factors Related to Alcohol Abuse Under Guideline G

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	The applicant deliberately omitted from his SF 86 six alcohol-related criminal offenses between 1992 and 2000.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	The applicant omitted the fact that three of those offenses were charged under the UCMJ.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	The applicant omitted the fact he was also charged with two other criminal offenses.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.d	The applicant omitted that he twice completed treatment and counseling for alcohol abuse.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant deliberately omitted from his SF 86 six alcohol-related criminal offenses between 1992 and 2000.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

1.b

The applicant omitted the fact that three of those offenses were charged under the UCMJ.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

1.c

The applicant omitted the fact he was also charged with two other criminal offenses.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

1.d

The applicant omitted that he twice completed treatment and counseling for alcohol abuse.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant abused alcohol from 1990 until October 2000.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant was involved in several alcohol-related criminal offenses.	For Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	The applicant underwent a three-month inpatient alcohol treatment program in 1997, and was diagnosed as alcohol dependent.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	The applicant entered but failed to complete court-ordered alcohol treatment from August 2000 to August 2001.	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant abused alcohol from 1990 until October 2000.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

—

2.b

The applicant was involved in several alcohol-related criminal offenses.

For Applicant

Alcohol Related Arrest

Denied

—

2.c

The applicant underwent a three-month inpatient alcohol treatment program in 1997, and was diagnosed as alcohol dependent.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

—

2.d

The applicant entered but failed to complete court-ordered alcohol treatment from August 2000 to August 2001.

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The government alleged Applicant's deliberate falsification of his SF 86 constituted a knowing and willful false statement to a government agency concerning a matter within its jurisdiction, thereby violating federal criminal law expressed in 18 U.S.C. § 1001.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(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

3.a

The government alleged Applicant's deliberate falsification of his SF 86 constituted a knowing and willful false statement to a government agency concerning a matter within its jurisdiction, thereby violating federal criminal law expressed in 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES