ISCR Case 04-10796.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-10796.h1

deniedOct 30, 2006· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old mechanic with military service was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The government alleged inappropriate sexual contact with his then five-year-old daughter in June 2000, leading to his arrest and felony charges in May 2001 for first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. These charges were dismissed nearly two years later when his ex-wife declined to cooperate with prosecutors.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's deliberate falsification of information. He made multiple false statements to NCIS and a government investigator, denying sexual assault or claiming it was accidental. Additionally, he deliberately omitted the felony charges, a car repossession from August 2002, and six past-due debts from his March 2003 SF 86 application. While the applicant mitigated financial concerns by settling debts, the deliberate omissions and false statements were significant disqualifying factors.

The applicant's failure to disclose relevant information and his criminal conduct, specifically the multiple false statements during his background investigation, raised serious doubts about his trustworthiness and candor. Consequently, his application for a security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately omitted felony charges and a repossession from his security clearance application (SF 86).
The applicant's failure to disclose relevant information raised doubts about his trustworthiness and candor.
The applicant's criminal conduct involved multiple false statements submitted during his background investigation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1appliedGuideline E (personal Conduct)The applicant's omissions from the SF 86 demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness.
E2.A3.1appliedGuideline J (criminal Conduct)The applicant's deliberate falsifications in his SF 86 constituted a violation of federal law.

Mitigating

E2.A1.3appliedGuideline F (financial Considerations)The applicant settled his largest debt prior to the issuance of the Statement of Reasons.
E2.A1.2appliedGuideline F (financial Considerations)Some debts were incurred by the applicant's ex-wife.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 9, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 27, 2006
Decision dateOct 30, 2006

Cite For

Disqualifying Conduct Due to Omissions on Security Clearance Applications
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Trustworthiness and Candor Issues Under Guideline E

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
1.a	The government alleged Applicant should be disqualified from holding a security clearance because he had inappropriate sexual contact with his then five-year-old daughter in June 2000 (SOR ¶ 1.a)	For Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In May 2001, he was arrested and charged with two felonies - first degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor - which were dismissed nearly two years later because Applicant's ex-wife refused to cooperate with prosecutors (SOR ¶ 1.b)	For Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

1.a

The government alleged Applicant should be disqualified from holding a security clearance because he had inappropriate sexual contact with his then five-year-old daughter in June 2000 (SOR ¶ 1.a)

For Applicant

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Denied

—

1.b

In May 2001, he was arrested and charged with two felonies - first degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor - which were dismissed nearly two years later because Applicant's ex-wife refused to cooperate with prosecutors (SOR ¶ 1.b)

For Applicant

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately falsified his statement to NCIS on March 1, 2001, in which he denied sexually assaulting or physically abusing his daughter in June 2000.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	Applicant deliberately falsified his statement to NCIS on March 20, 2001, when he stated any inappropriate sexual contact with his daughter in June 2000 was accidental.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.c	Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to disclose the fact he had been arrested and charged with a felony in connection with the alleged misconduct with his daughter.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.d	Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to disclose the fact his car was repossessed in August 2002.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.e	Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to list three debts more than 180 days past due.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.f	Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to list three debts more than 90 days past due.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.g	Applicant deliberately falsified his February 2004 statement to a government investigator during his background investigation when he again denied sexually assaulting his daughter in June 2000.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant deliberately falsified his statement to NCIS on March 1, 2001, in which he denied sexually assaulting or physically abusing his daughter in June 2000.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.b

Applicant deliberately falsified his statement to NCIS on March 20, 2001, when he stated any inappropriate sexual contact with his daughter in June 2000 was accidental.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.c

Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to disclose the fact he had been arrested and charged with a felony in connection with the alleged misconduct with his daughter.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.d

Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to disclose the fact his car was repossessed in August 2002.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

—

2.e

Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to list three debts more than 180 days past due.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

2.f

Applicant deliberately falsified his March 2003 SF 86 by failing to list three debts more than 90 days past due.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

2.g

Applicant deliberately falsified his February 2004 statement to a government investigator during his background investigation when he again denied sexually assaulting his daughter in June 2000.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
4.a	owed over $12,000 after his car was repossessed in 2002, and he owed about $660 for three other unpaid debts $12,660	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (f) the affluence resulted from a legal source	Documented Debt Paid in Full Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

4.a

owed over $12,000 after his car was repossessed in 2002, and he owed about $660 for three other unpaid debts

$12,660

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The government alleged the Applicant should be disqualified from holding a security clearance because of the sexual assault and risk of injury charges specified in SOR ¶ 1.b (SOR ¶ 3.a)	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
3.b	The government alleged the Applicant should be disqualified from holding a security clearance because he deliberately made false statements to government investigators and NCIS agents, and through his answers to questions in his SF 86, thereby violating federal criminal law as expressed in 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (SOR ¶ 3.b)	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

3.a

The government alleged the Applicant should be disqualified from holding a security clearance because of the sexual assault and risk of injury charges specified in SOR ¶ 1.b (SOR ¶ 3.a)

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

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

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

—

3.b

The government alleged the Applicant should be disqualified from holding a security clearance because he deliberately made false statements to government investigators and NCIS agents, and through his answers to questions in his SF 86, thereby violating federal criminal law as expressed in 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (SOR ¶ 3.b)

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

DISCUSSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES