ISCR Case 04-08934.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-08934.h1

deniedFeb 24, 2006· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old facility security representative was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant failed to disclose a May 1996 theft conviction on multiple security clearance applications signed in August 1997 and September 2002. On these forms, she answered "No" to questions regarding arrests, citations, or convictions for offenses like shoplifting.

While the applicant claimed to have forgotten about the 1996 theft when completing the September 2002 application, she had admitted to the theft, been booked, pled guilty, and paid a fine. Her continued denial of deliberately omitting this material information undermined her credibility.

Further complicating the case, in November 2002, the applicant was arrested for felonious assault following a confrontation. This subsequent criminal behavior, combined with the undisclosed theft conviction and the applicant's lack of candor, led to the denial of her security clearance, indicating poor judgment and unreliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose a 1996 theft conviction on security forms despite knowing she had been booked, pled guilty, and paid a fine.
The applicant's continued denial of deliberately withholding material information undermined her credibility.
The applicant's serious criminal behavior in November 2002 indicated poor judgment and unreliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.1rejectedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or Not Pertinent or a Determination of Judgment, Reliability or TrustworthinessThe 1996 theft conviction was independently substantiated.
E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information VoluntarilyThe applicant continues to deny deliberate omission.
E2.A5.1.3.4rejectedOmission of Material Facts Was Caused or Significantly Contributed to by Improper or Inadequate Advice of Authorized PersonnelThe applicant's reliance on the recruiter's advice in 2002 cannot be extenuated.

Key Rule Quoted

“Deliberately providing false information during a security investigation demonstrates poor judgment and could mean the person is not a suitable candidate to safeguard classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 14, 2005
Answer filedJul 1, 2005Requested a hearing.
Hearing heldNov 6, 2005
Decision dateFeb 24, 2006

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Applications
Impact of Continued Denial on Credibility
Consideration of Age and Familiarity with Security Forms in Personal Conduct Cases

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	In August 1997, Applicant signed a United States (U.S.) Army security clearance screening application. She answered "No" in response to question 31 (have you ever been arrested, cited or convicted of shoplifting) of the application.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—
2.b	Applicant signed a second security clearance application (SCA) on the same day in August 1997. In response to question 23 (in the last 7 years, have you ever been arrested, charged with or convicted of an offense...), Applicant answered "No."	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—
2.c	In explanation of her "No" answer to question 26 (requiring information about arrests, charges or convictions in the last 7 years) of an SCA she signed in September 2002, Applicant indicated in her response to the SOR that she had completely forgotten about the May 1996 theft when she furnished the negative answer.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In August 1997, Applicant signed a United States (U.S.) Army security clearance screening application. She answered "No" in response to question 31 (have you ever been arrested, cited or convicted of shoplifting) of the application.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

2.b

Applicant signed a second security clearance application (SCA) on the same day in August 1997. In response to question 23 (in the last 7 years, have you ever been arrested, charged with or convicted of an offense...), Applicant answered "No."

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

2.c

In explanation of her "No" answer to question 26 (requiring information about arrests, charges or convictions in the last 7 years) of an SCA she signed in September 2002, Applicant indicated in her response to the SOR that she had completely forgotten about the May 1996 theft when she furnished the negative answer.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted to a theft offense in May 1996, which she failed to disclose on her security forms in 1997 and September 2002.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	In November 2002, Applicant was arrested for felonious assault after a confrontation with her former husband and his cousin.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	Applicant's omission of her 1996 theft conviction on her September 2002 security clearance application constitutes a criminal violation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(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

1.a

Applicant admitted to a theft offense in May 1996, which she failed to disclose on her security forms in 1997 and September 2002.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.b

In November 2002, Applicant was arrested for felonious assault after a confrontation with her former husband and his cousin.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Charged Not Convicted

Denied

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.c

Applicant's omission of her 1996 theft conviction on her September 2002 security clearance application constitutes a criminal violation.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES