ISCR Case 04-00772.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-00772.h1

deniedNov 23, 2005· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from multiple alcohol-related offenses, a pattern of deliberate omissions on security clearance applications, and significant financial delinquencies.

Specifically, the applicant had three DUI or drunk driving charges between 1989 and 1999, with BACs ranging from 0.13 to 0.19. While he disclosed one 1998 incident, he intentionally failed to report the 1989 and 1999 charges, as well as related alcohol treatment, on multiple security clearance applications (SF 86s) submitted between 2000 and 2003. He also provided false sworn statements to Defense Security Service agents, initially denying other alcohol-related incidents and later admitting to deliberate falsification because he believed the offenses would not be discovered.

Additionally, the applicant had numerous delinquent accounts, totaling almost $5,800, plus an additional $2,696 for a municipal/county government claim, which he failed to disclose on his SF 86s. Despite claims of payment or enrollment in a repayment program, no supporting documentation was provided. These deliberate omissions and financial issues, combined with the alcohol-related incidents, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally failed to disclose two DUI charges in security clearance applications.
He provided false information during interviews with security officials regarding his alcohol-related offenses.
The applicant has numerous delinquent accounts totaling almost $5,800, which he failed to disclose.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
DC 1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
DC 1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
DC 1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

MC 2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem

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 issuedMay 3, 2005
Answer filedMar 10, 2005Requested decision based on written record without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing held.
Decision dateNov 23, 2005

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Alcohol-related Offenses on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline G
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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on March 11, 1989. His blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.17 at the time of his arrest. He was found guilty of a reduced charge of Reckless Driving and sentenced to serve 90 days in jail (suspended) and fined $250.00 plus court costs. He also received a written reprimand from the Army for this offense.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	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 was charged with Drunk Driving for an offense committed on February 13, 1998. His BAC was 0.19 at the time of this offense. He was disciplined under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on March 19, 1998 for this offense, was reduced in paygrade from E-6 to E-5, ordered to forfeit $806.00 pay, and perform 45 days extra duties. His driving privileges were also suspended for one year.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	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 was again charged with Drunk Driving on June 1, 1999. His BAC at the time of this offense was 0.13. Administrative action was taken by the Army against him based upon this offense that required Applicant to perform 100 hours of community service, and his driving privileges were revoked for five years.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	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 either executed or caused to be submitted security clearance applications (SF 86) on October 18, 2000, November 25, 2000, and January 16, 2003. In each of those SF 86s, Applicant disclosed the 1998 Drunk Driving charge and Article 15 punishment, but failed to disclose the 1989 and 1999 charges and the alcohol treatment he received in response to questions requiring him to disclose that information.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.e	He was questioned by a Special Agent (SA) from the Defense Security Service (DSS) on November 1, 2002, and provided a signed sworn statement in which he discussed his 1998 Drunk Driving offense. However, he went on to affirmatively state: "I have not had any other alcohol-related incidents or arrests." He admitted during that statement deliberately failing to disclose the alcohol treatment because he was embarrassed about it.	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.f	Applicant was questioned by another SA from the DSS on October 21, 2003, and confronted with reports that had been obtained by the DSS concerning the 1989 and 1999 offenses. He admitted at that time that he had deliberately falsified the SF 86s he submitted and deliberately provided false information to the SA during the November 2002 interview because he did not think those offenses would be discovered.	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.g	Applicant has numerous delinquent accounts that have either been submitted for collection or charged off as bad debts, and that have been delinquent for years. Although he claims some were paid and others would be paid, and he was entering into a debt repayment program to satisfy others, he provided no documentation in support of any of those assertions.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.h	Applicant failed to list any delinquent accounts in any of the SF 86s he submitted, despite having been questioned about some of them by the SA from DSS before he submitted the January 2003 SF 86. He admitted each SOR allegation pertaining to the falsifications of the SF 86s by failing to disclose these accounts.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.i	Applicant's explanations about not knowing about the accounts and/or that he believed the accounts were paid are not credible.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j–1.m	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on March 11, 1989. His blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.17 at the time of his arrest. He was found guilty of a reduced charge of Reckless Driving and sentenced to serve 90 days in jail (suspended) and fined $250.00 plus court costs. He also received a written reprimand from the Army for this offense.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

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 was charged with Drunk Driving for an offense committed on February 13, 1998. His BAC was 0.19 at the time of this offense. He was disciplined under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on March 19, 1998 for this offense, was reduced in paygrade from E-6 to E-5, ordered to forfeit $806.00 pay, and perform 45 days extra duties. His driving privileges were also suspended for one year.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

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 was again charged with Drunk Driving on June 1, 1999. His BAC at the time of this offense was 0.13. Administrative action was taken by the Army against him based upon this offense that required Applicant to perform 100 hours of community service, and his driving privileges were revoked for five years.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

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 either executed or caused to be submitted security clearance applications (SF 86) on October 18, 2000, November 25, 2000, and January 16, 2003. In each of those SF 86s, Applicant disclosed the 1998 Drunk Driving charge and Article 15 punishment, but failed to disclose the 1989 and 1999 charges and the alcohol treatment he received in response to questions requiring him to disclose that information.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

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

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

—

1.e

He was questioned by a Special Agent (SA) from the Defense Security Service (DSS) on November 1, 2002, and provided a signed sworn statement in which he discussed his 1998 Drunk Driving offense. However, he went on to affirmatively state: "I have not had any other alcohol-related incidents or arrests." He admitted during that statement deliberately failing to disclose the alcohol treatment because he was embarrassed about it.

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.f

Applicant was questioned by another SA from the DSS on October 21, 2003, and confronted with reports that had been obtained by the DSS concerning the 1989 and 1999 offenses. He admitted at that time that he had deliberately falsified the SF 86s he submitted and deliberately provided false information to the SA during the November 2002 interview because he did not think those offenses would be discovered.

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.g

Applicant has numerous delinquent accounts that have either been submitted for collection or charged off as bad debts, and that have been delinquent for years. Although he claims some were paid and others would be paid, and he was entering into a debt repayment program to satisfy others, he provided no documentation in support of any of those assertions.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

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

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

—

1.h

Applicant failed to list any delinquent accounts in any of the SF 86s he submitted, despite having been questioned about some of them by the SA from DSS before he submitted the January 2003 SF 86. He admitted each SOR allegation pertaining to the falsifications of the SF 86s by failing to disclose these accounts.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

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

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

—

1.i

Applicant's explanations about not knowing about the accounts and/or that he believed the accounts were paid are not credible.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

1.j–1.m

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has numerous debts that have either been submitted for collection or charged off as bad debts, totaling almost $5,800.00, and an additional collection account owing to a municipal/county government in the amount of $2,696.00 that appears to be a claim for past due spousal support. $5,796	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b–3.i	8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has numerous debts that have either been submitted for collection or charged off as bad debts, totaling almost $5,800.00, and an additional collection account owing to a municipal/county government in the amount of $2,696.00 that appears to be a claim for past due spousal support.

$5,796

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.b–3.i

8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1982 until at least 2003.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
2.b	The applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on three occasions between 1989 and 1999.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.c	The applicant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.17 at the time of his arrest on March 11, 1989.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	The applicant's BAC was 0.19 at the time of his arrest on February 13, 1998.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	The applicant's BAC was 0.13 at the time of his arrest on June 1, 1999.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	The applicant received alcohol treatment from June 1998 until September 1998 and again from July 1999 until December 1999, but was dis-enrolled due to his failure to participate.	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1982 until at least 2003.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

—

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

2.b

The applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on three occasions between 1989 and 1999.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

—

2.c

The applicant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.17 at the time of his arrest on March 11, 1989.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

2.d

The applicant's BAC was 0.19 at the time of his arrest on February 13, 1998.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

2.e

The applicant's BAC was 0.13 at the time of his arrest on June 1, 1999.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

2.f

The applicant received alcohol treatment from June 1998 until September 1998 and again from July 1999 until December 1999, but was dis-enrolled due to his failure to participate.

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was charged with either Drunk Driving or Driving Under the Influence on three occasions between 1989 and 1999.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	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

3.a

Applicant was charged with either Drunk Driving or Driving Under the Influence on three occasions between 1989 and 1999.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Charged Not Convicted

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