Summary
The applicant, a 46-year-old senior engineering technician, faced security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct), Guideline F (financial considerations), and Guideline J (criminal conduct) due to a history of financial problems and falsification of his security clearance application. While the applicant mitigated the financial concerns by demonstrating good-faith efforts to resolve debts, he failed to mitigate the serious issue of falsification, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The applicant deliberately omitted relevant information about his financial history on his security-clearance application (2.a). The applicant provided false answers in response to Questions 36, 38, and 39 of his security-clearance application (2.b). The applicant's explanations for the omissions and false answers were not credible and did not mitigate the security concerns (2.c). The IRS filed a tax lien against Applicant for tax years 1988, 1990, and 1993, for a total debt of $5,033 (1.a). The IRS filed a tax lien against Applicant for tax years 1991, 1992, and 1996, for a total debt of nearly $14,000 (1.b). Applicant had a judgment against him for $1,056 resulting from a car accident without insurance (1.c). Applicant had a state lien placed against him in June 2004 for $512 (1.d). Applicant owed $211 for a past due medical account (1.e). The applicant provided false answers in response to Questions 36, 38, and 39 of his security-clearance application (3.a).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC 2. The judge applied mitigating conditions MC 3, MC 6. The decision turned on the following: The applicant deliberately omitted relevant information about his financial history on his security clearance application; The applicant's explanations for the omissions were found to be not credible and inconsistent; The applicant failed to mitigate the security concern stemming from his falsifications, which are violations of federal law.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant deliberately omitted relevant information about his financial history on his security clearance application.
- The applicant's explanations for the omissions were found to be not credible and inconsistent.
- The applicant failed to mitigate the security concern stemming from his falsifications, which are violations of federal law.
Conditions Referenced
- DC 2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- MC 3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- MC 6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the government when applying for a security clearance or in other official matters is a security concern.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 24, 2005
- Answer filedMay 13, 2005
- Hearing heldDec 8, 2005Applicant's counsel was unavailable for the originally scheduled hearing on 10/27/2005 due to illness.
- Decision dateMay 31, 2006
Cite For
- Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Criminal Conduct Related to Falsification Under Guideline J