ISCR Case 04-11576.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-11576.h1

deniedNov 15, 2006· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old pipehanger was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of willfully failing to file federal and state income tax returns for nine years, resulting in a federal tax debt exceeding $42,000, and additional state tax and charge-off debts.

Furthermore, the applicant deliberately falsified his November 2002 security clearance application (SF 86) by denying illegal drug use, failing to disclose prior treatment for alcohol dependence, and misrepresenting his financial delinquencies. He also had a history of alcohol dependence, including an October 1993 conviction for operating under the influence.

While the applicant successfully completed treatment for alcohol dependence and subsequently filed delinquent tax returns, the judge found ongoing concerns regarding his personal conduct, criminal conduct, and financial considerations. These issues, particularly the willful tax evasion and lack of candor on his security clearance application, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant willfully failed to file tax returns for nine years, incurring a federal tax debt exceeding $42,000.
The applicant was not candid about his tax debt or drug use on his security clearance application, which included false statements regarding illegal drug use and financial delinquencies.
Ongoing issues related to personal conduct, criminal conduct, and financial considerations were present despite some mitigating factors.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.1raisedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations
J2.A1.1raisedCriminal Conduct, Including Arrests and Convictions
F2.A1.1raisedFinancial Considerations, Including Failure to Meet Financial Obligations
G2.A1.1raisedAlcohol Consumption, Including Abuse and Dependence

Mitigating

E2.A5.2.1rejectedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate the RiskWhile the applicant completed treatment for alcohol dependence, the judge found that the deliberate falsifications on the security clearance application were not mitigated.
G2.A2.1appliedThe Individual Has Successfully Completed a Rehabilitation Program and Has Maintained Abstinence From Alcohol
F2.A2.1rejectedThe Individual Has Made Efforts to Resolve Financial IssuesThe applicant's tax debts remained unresolved despite filing delinquent returns.

Key Rule Quoted

“Each security clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy.”
— Directive ¶ 6.3

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 19, 2005
Answer filedAug 5, 2005
Hearing heldMay 16, 2006Originally scheduled for May 15, 2006, but convened a day later.
Decision dateNov 15, 2006

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Willful Failure to File Tax Returns Under Guideline F
Issues of Personal Conduct and Dishonesty Under Guideline E
Impact of Substance Abuse History on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline G

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.a	Applicant deliberately falsified his November 2002 security clearance (SF 86) by denying any illegal drug use in the seven years preceding the application, failing to disclose treatment for alcohol dependence from January 6, 1998 to January 28, 1998, and denying any financial delinquencies over 180 days when he owed the IRS up to $23,000 due to failure to file returns from 1993 to November 2002.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
1.b–1.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant deliberately falsified his November 2002 security clearance (SF 86) by denying any illegal drug use in the seven years preceding the application, failing to disclose treatment for alcohol dependence from January 6, 1998 to January 28, 1998, and denying any financial delinquencies over 180 days when he owed the IRS up to $23,000 due to failure to file returns from 1993 to November 2002.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

1.b–1.c

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant willfully disregarded his obligations to timely file federal and state income tax returns for nine years, and incurred a federal tax debt in excess of $42,000. $42,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant incurred a federal tax debt of about $14,335.29 to the IRS and $565.63 to the state. $14,335	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant has a $195 charge off debt for telephone services. $195	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant willfully disregarded his obligations to timely file federal and state income tax returns for nine years, and incurred a federal tax debt in excess of $42,000.

$42,000

Against Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant incurred a federal tax debt of about $14,335.29 to the IRS and $565.63 to the state.

$14,335

Against Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Admitted

—

3.c

Applicant has a $195 charge off debt for telephone services.

$195

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
4.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related arrests.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
4.b	The applicant has been diagnosed with alcohol dependence.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

4.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related arrests.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

4.b

The applicant has been diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested twice for drunk driving, sometime between 1989 and 1991, and in October 1993. There is no evidence proving Applicant was intoxicated on the occasion of his first arrest, and a favorable finding is therefore returned as to SOR ¶ 2.a.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant was arrested and convicted of an October 1993 operating under the influence (OUI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.c	Applicant willfully failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 1996 through 2002 and his state income tax returns for tax years 1993 through 2002.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.d	Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by falsifying his SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.e–2.t	16 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (14 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was arrested twice for drunk driving, sometime between 1989 and 1991, and in October 1993. There is no evidence proving Applicant was intoxicated on the occasion of his first arrest, and a favorable finding is therefore returned as to SOR ¶ 2.a.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant was arrested and convicted of an October 1993 operating under the influence (OUI).

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

—

2.c

Applicant willfully failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 1996 through 2002 and his state income tax returns for tax years 1993 through 2002.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

2.d

Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by falsifying his SF 86.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

—

2.e–2.t

16 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (14 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES