ISCR Case 04-07654.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-07654.h1

deniedOct 19, 2006· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including six non-judicial punishments between 1991 and 1992, and arrests for criminal misconduct in 1998 and 1999. He also admitted to intentionally falsifying answers on his security clearance application regarding these criminal charges and a 1999 employment termination, which constituted a criminal violation.

Additionally, the applicant failed to disclose a $9,158 judgment from December 1999 related to a 1994 car loan and answered "No" to a question about being over 180 days delinquent on debts, thereby not revealing the defaulted loan. While some financial concerns were mitigated, the judge found that the applicant's intentional omissions and explanations for his conduct were not credible, demonstrating a pattern of dishonesty.

The judge concluded that the applicant's criminal and personal conduct, particularly his deliberate falsifications and omissions on the security clearance application, raised significant doubts about his judgment and trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including multiple non-judicial punishments and arrests for sexual assault.
He intentionally omitted significant employment and criminal history from his security clearance application.
The applicant's explanations for his omissions were deemed not credible, indicating a pattern of dishonesty.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.2.5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision to deny an individual a security clearance request to an individual is not necessarily a judgment of the applicant's loyalty.”
— Executive Order 10865, § 7.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 5, 2005
Answer filedAug 9, 2005Applicant admitted most allegations.
Hearing held—Case decided on written record.
Decision dateOct 19, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on a Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Denial Due to Intentional Omissions on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Despite Other Disqualifying Factors.

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
2.a	Applicant admitted he intentionally falsified his answers to Questions 11 and 22, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, because he was embarrassed by his conduct.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant admitted he intentionally falsified his answers to Questions 11 and 22, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, because he was embarrassed by his conduct.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	Applicant denied that he intentionally failed to disclose the two criminal charges as alleged in ¶ 2.c, but believed he did not need to reveal them because they were dismissed.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.d	Applicant did not disclose a $9,158 judgment entered in December 1999 related to a 1994 car loan.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.e	Applicant answered 'No' to the question about being over 180 days delinquent on any debts and did not disclose the defaulted car loan.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.f	Applicant did not answer the allegations contained in SOR ¶¶ 2.e and 2.f alleging the falsification of these questions.	Against Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.g	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant admitted he intentionally falsified his answers to Questions 11 and 22, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, because he was embarrassed by his conduct.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.b

Applicant admitted he intentionally falsified his answers to Questions 11 and 22, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, because he was embarrassed by his conduct.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.c

Applicant denied that he intentionally failed to disclose the two criminal charges as alleged in ¶ 2.c, but believed he did not need to reveal them because they were dismissed.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.d

Applicant did not disclose a $9,158 judgment entered in December 1999 related to a 1994 car loan.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.e

Applicant answered 'No' to the question about being over 180 days delinquent on any debts and did not disclose the defaulted car loan.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.f

Applicant did not answer the allegations contained in SOR ¶¶ 2.e and 2.f alleging the falsification of these questions.

Against Applicant

Failure to Report Required Information

—

Unknown

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.g

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant owes a delinquent debt related to a 1994 car loan.	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Claimed Debt Paid in Full

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant owes a delinquent debt related to a 1994 car loan.

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted he received a Non-Judicial Punishment on six separate occasions for multiple minor charges from 1991 to 1992. In addition, he was arrested and charged with criminal misconduct in 1998 and 1999. Applicant also admitted he deliberately chose not to disclose a 1999 employment termination and the underlying reason on his September 2000 SF-86, which constitutes a criminal violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, a felony.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted he received a Non-Judicial Punishment on six separate occasions for multiple minor charges from 1991 to 1992. In addition, he was arrested and charged with criminal misconduct in 1998 and 1999. Applicant also admitted he deliberately chose not to disclose a 1999 employment termination and the underlying reason on his September 2000 SF-86, which constitutes a criminal violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, a felony.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

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

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES