ISCR Case 04-08047.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-08047.h1

deniedMay 30, 2006· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to significant concerns across three guidelines: Personal Conduct, Financial Considerations, and Criminal Conduct. The judge determined that these issues prevented a finding that granting clearance would be consistent with national interest.

The applicant had a history of not meeting financial obligations, accumulating over $9,000 in debts that had either gone to judgment or been placed for collection. Additionally, the applicant intentionally provided false, material information on three questions of his 2002 Security Clearance Application (SCA) and in a signed, sworn statement in 2004. These falsifications were deemed felonious conduct under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Furthermore, the applicant had a record of at least five arrests between 1978 and May 2002. The recency and extent of this criminal conduct, particularly the felonies related to falsification, precluded the application of any mitigating factors. The combination of these financial difficulties, intentional misrepresentations, and criminal history led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations, with debts exceeding $9,000, which reflects adversely on his judgment and reliability.
Applicant intentionally falsified material facts on his SCA and in a sworn statement, undermining trustworthiness required for clearance holders.
Applicant has a record of multiple arrests and serious criminal conduct, which further disqualifies him from obtaining a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.2.3appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters
E2.A10.1.2.2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, or in a signed, sworn statement, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 29, 2005
Answer filedSep 20, 2005Applicant elected to have case determined on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateMay 30, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Intentional Falsifications on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Consideration of Criminal History in Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline J

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	Applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts on the Security Clearance Application (SCA) and in the signed, sworn statement he gave to the DSS agent are extremely troubling.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2	Applicant intentionally provided false, material information in response to three questions on the SCA in 2002, and in the signed, sworn statement in 2004.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3	The recency and extent of applicant's criminal conduct, particularly his felonious conduct under 18 U.S.C. 1001, precludes application of any mitigating factors.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

Applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts on the Security Clearance Application (SCA) and in the signed, sworn statement he gave to the DSS agent are extremely troubling.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

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

—

Applicant intentionally provided false, material information in response to three questions on the SCA in 2002, and in the signed, sworn statement in 2004.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

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

—

The recency and extent of applicant's criminal conduct, particularly his felonious conduct under 18 U.S.C. 1001, precludes application of any mitigating factors.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to numerous creditors in an amount in excess of $9,000.00. All of these debts have either gone to judgment or have been placed for collection. $9,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
2.a–3.a	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant is indebted to numerous creditors in an amount in excess of $9,000.00. All of these debts have either gone to judgment or have been placed for collection.

$9,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

2.a–3.a

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested at least five times from 1978 to May 2002.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.b	Applicant intentionally provided false, material information in response to three questions on the SCA in 2002.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	Applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts constitute felonies under 18 U.S.C. 1001.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested at least five times from 1978 to May 2002.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.b

Applicant intentionally provided false, material information in response to three questions on the SCA in 2002.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.c

Applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts constitute felonies under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

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