ISCR Case 04-04583.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-04583.h1

deniedDec 29, 2006· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old U.S. citizen computer engineer was denied retention of his security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). While Guideline B (Foreign Influence) was initially raised, the government did not establish disqualifying conditions related to the applicant's Russian national wife, who is a U.S. legal permanent resident awaiting naturalization, or her Russian citizen parents. There was no evidence of the in-laws being foreign agents or positioned to influence the applicant, and the wife has not returned to Russia since immigrating.

The denial stemmed from the applicant's deliberate falsification on multiple security clearance applications. Specifically, he provided false answers on three applications between 1987 and 2003. On his 1987 and 2003 applications, he reported a minor criminal offense but omitted more serious charges. Furthermore, on his 2001 application, he failed to report any of his relevant criminal charges.

These deliberate omissions and false statements demonstrated a lack of candor and raised significant trustworthiness concerns, which are essential for cleared personnel. Despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the consistent pattern of misrepresentation regarding criminal conduct ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant's deliberate falsification of clearance applications demonstrates a lack of candor required of cleared personnel.
The applicant's history of omitting relevant criminal conduct on multiple applications raises significant trustworthiness concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Minor in NatureAlthough the applicant had a history of criminal offenses, they were dated and relatively minor.

Key Rule Quoted

“The government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 25, 2005
Answer filedJun 1, 2005Undated answer submitted.
Hearing heldMar 13, 2006
Decision dateDec 29, 2006

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Disqualification Based on Deliberate Falsification of Information
Foreign Influence Concerns Mitigated by Applicant's Wife's Legal Status in the U.S.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant's wife is a Russian national who is a legal permanent resident of the U.S. and is awaiting a date for her naturalization ceremony.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Russia HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
1.b	The applicant's in-laws are citizens and residents of Russia, but there is no evidence they are agents of a foreign government or positioned to influence the applicant.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Russia HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
1.c	The applicant has no immediate family members living in Russia, and his wife has not returned to Russia since immigrating to the U.S.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	Russia HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—
1.d	The applicant's wife is not at risk of pressure from Russian authorities as she is a legal permanent resident of the U.S. and has completed all requirements for U.S. citizenship.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Russia HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant's wife is a Russian national who is a legal permanent resident of the U.S. and is awaiting a date for her naturalization ceremony.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Russia

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

—

1.b

The applicant's in-laws are citizens and residents of Russia, but there is no evidence they are agents of a foreign government or positioned to influence the applicant.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Russia

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

—

1.c

The applicant has no immediate family members living in Russia, and his wife has not returned to Russia since immigrating to the U.S.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Immediate Family

Russia

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

—

1.d

The applicant's wife is not at risk of pressure from Russian authorities as she is a legal permanent resident of the U.S. and has completed all requirements for U.S. citizenship.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Russia

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant provided false answers on three clearance applications between 1987 and 2003.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	On the 1987 and 2003 applications, he reported a minor criminal offense while omitting more serious charges.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	On his 2001 application, he failed to report any of his relevant criminal charges.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant provided false answers on three clearance applications between 1987 and 2003.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

On the 1987 and 2003 applications, he reported a minor criminal offense while omitting more serious charges.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.c

On his 2001 application, he failed to report any of his relevant criminal charges.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a–3.g	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a–3.g

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

For Applicant

—

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES