ISCR Case 05-00613.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-00613.h1

deniedAug 18, 2006· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old defense contractor employee 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 alcohol consumption to excess from about 1970 or 1971 to June 1997, including DUI convictions in 1970 or 1971, 1994, and 1997, and an arrest for DUI in 1987 that resulted in a reckless driving conviction. Other criminal conduct included a 1988 arrest for disturbing the peace and a 2001 citation for theft and entering lands.

While the applicant successfully resolved multiple financial debts, including an IRS debt of about $7,300 as of October 2005, and demonstrated positive changes in alcohol consumption, a significant concern remained. On a May 2003 Security Clearance Application, the applicant disclosed only one alcohol-related conviction from 1994, failing to list others from 1970 or 1971, 1987, and 1997. This willful falsification of information was deemed a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied. No mitigating conditions were found applicable to the applicant's personal conduct and related criminal conduct, and the willful falsification of information on the application, combined with the history of alcohol-related and criminal incidents, raised significant security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The Applicant willfully falsified information on his Security Clearance Application, violating 18 U.S.C. 1001.
No mitigating conditions were applicable to the Applicant's Personal Conduct and related Criminal Conduct.
The Applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents and criminal conduct raised significant security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.2.appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
J2.A1.appliedAdmission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
F2.A1.raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F2.A3.raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A3.rejectedThe Information Was Unintentional or the Result of an Oversight
F2.A3.appliedCircumstances Largely Beyond the Applicant's Control
G2.A3.appliedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety

Key Rule Quoted

“Each 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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 23, 2005
Answer filedOct 17, 2005
Hearing heldMay 24, 2006
Decision dateAug 18, 2006

Cite For

Willful Falsification of Information on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Past Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance Under Guideline G
Financial Difficulties as a Mitigating Factor Under Guideline F When Caused by Circumstances Beyond Control.

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.d	In answer to question 24 on a May 2003 SCA, the Applicant disclosed his alcohol related conviction in 1994, but failed to list his alcohol related convictions in 1970 or 1971, in 1987, and in 1997.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3.a	The Applicant's false representation on his SCA is also a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.d

In answer to question 24 on a May 2003 SCA, the Applicant disclosed his alcohol related conviction in 1994, but failed to list his alcohol related convictions in 1970 or 1971, in 1987, and in 1997.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

3.a

The Applicant's false representation on his SCA is also a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
4.a	The Applicant's debt to the Internal Revenue Service, in the amount of about $7,300, as of October 2005, has been "paid in full" by way of garnishment $7,300	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	—
4.b	The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $1,333 to a bank for a credit card has been paid $1,333	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
4.c	The Applicant's debt to a second bank in the amount of about $7,017 has been paid $7,017	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
4.d	The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $85 to a phone company has been paid $85	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
4.e	The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $128 to another phone company/cable provider has been paid $128	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
4.f	The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $1,897 has been paid $1,897	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
4.g	The Applicant's debt for an educational loan in the amount of about $4,269 has been "paid in full," as reflected by a letter from the creditor $4,269	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
4.h–4.i	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

4.a

The Applicant's debt to the Internal Revenue Service, in the amount of about $7,300, as of October 2005, has been "paid in full" by way of garnishment

$7,300

For Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Admitted

—

4.b

The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $1,333 to a bank for a credit card has been paid

$1,333

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

4.c

The Applicant's debt to a second bank in the amount of about $7,017 has been paid

$7,017

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

4.d

The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $85 to a phone company has been paid

$85

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

4.e

The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $128 to another phone company/cable provider has been paid

$128

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

4.f

The Applicant avers credibly that his debt in the amount of about $1,897 has been paid

$1,897

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

4.g

The Applicant's debt for an educational loan in the amount of about $4,269 has been "paid in full," as reflected by a letter from the creditor

$4,269

For Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Admitted

—

4.h–4.i

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication from about 1970 or 1971 to about June of 1997.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—
1.b	In about 1970 or 1971, the Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Driving Under the Influence (DUI).	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	In June of 1987, the Applicant was arrested, in part, for DUI, but was found guilty of an amended charge of Reckless Driving.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	In December of 1994, the Applicant was again arrested, in part, for, and subsequently pled nolo contendere to, DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.e	In February of 1997, the Applicant was arrested, in part, for, and subsequently pled no contest to, DUI.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication from about 1970 or 1971 to about June of 1997.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse

—

1.b

In about 1970 or 1971, the Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

—

1.c

In June of 1987, the Applicant was arrested, in part, for DUI, but was found guilty of an amended charge of Reckless Driving.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

—

1.d

In December of 1994, the Applicant was again arrested, in part, for, and subsequently pled nolo contendere to, DUI.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

—

1.e

In February of 1997, the Applicant was arrested, in part, for, and subsequently pled no contest to, DUI.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Above and beyond the alcohol related arrests listed in Paragraph 1, above, in July of 1988, the Applicant was arrested, and subsequently pled guilty to an amended charge of Disturbing the Peace.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.b	Most recently, in June of 2001, the Applicant was cited for, and subsequently pled nolo contendere to, Entering Any Lands, et al and to Theft.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Diversion or Deferred	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.c	In answer to question 24 on a May 2003 SCA, the Applicant disclosed his alcohol related conviction in 1994, but failed to list his alcohol related convictions in 1970 or 1971, in 1987, and in 1997.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.d	This lack of candor is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
3.a	The Applicant's false representation on his SCA is also a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Above and beyond the alcohol related arrests listed in Paragraph 1, above, in July of 1988, the Applicant was arrested, and subsequently pled guilty to an amended charge of Disturbing the Peace.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Convicted

Admitted

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

—

2.b

Most recently, in June of 2001, the Applicant was cited for, and subsequently pled nolo contendere to, Entering Any Lands, et al and to Theft.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Diversion or Deferred

Admitted

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

—

2.c

In answer to question 24 on a May 2003 SCA, the Applicant disclosed his alcohol related conviction in 1994, but failed to list his alcohol related convictions in 1970 or 1971, in 1987, and in 1997.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

2.d

This lack of candor is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

3.a

The Applicant's false representation on his SCA is also a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(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

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES