ISCR Case 05-01886.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-01886.h1

deniedDec 19, 2005· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old computer systems administrator, employed by a federal contractor, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a significant and lengthy criminal history, including multiple felonies and misdemeanors, which he failed to fully disclose on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant deliberately omitted past felony criminal conduct and other offenses, as well as a wage garnishment. His testimony during the review process was deemed consistently not credible, demonstrating questionable judgment and a pattern of dishonesty. While the applicant had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2005, with debts discharged in April 2005, and resolved some minor financial issues, these actions did not mitigate the more serious security concerns.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's extensive criminal record, the deliberate omission of this history from his application, and his lack of candor during testimony. These factors collectively indicated a vulnerability that led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of criminal offenses, including multiple felonies.
The applicant deliberately omitted significant criminal history from his security clearance application.
The applicant's testimony was found to be not credible, indicating a lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.2.4appliedConcealment of Information That Increases Vulnerability to Coercion
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Charges

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated IncidentThe applicant's omissions were recent and part of a pattern of dishonesty.
E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the FalsificationThe applicant did not make prompt efforts to correct his omissions.
E2.A5.1.3.4rejectedOmission Caused by Improper AdviceThe applicant's claims of misunderstanding were not credible.
E2.A5.1.3.5rejectedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability to CoercionThe applicant's lack of candor and questionable judgment were significant security concerns.
E2.A10.1.2.1rejectedThe Conduct Was Not RecentThe applicant's criminal history is extensive and ongoing.
E2.A10.1.2.2rejectedThe Crime Was an Isolated IncidentThe applicant has a pattern of criminal behavior.
E2.A10.1.3.6rejectedClear Evidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant's past conduct shows a lack of respect for the law.

Key Rule Quoted

“The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 6, 2005
Answer filedJun 24, 2005Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldNov 9, 2005
Decision dateDec 19, 2005

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E and Guideline J Due to a History of Criminal Conduct
Credibility Issues Impacting the Applicant's Testimony
Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Related to Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct

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 failed to divulge on his SCA all of his transgressions with regard to his past felony criminal conduct, other criminal offenses and his wages being garnished.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	Applicant's testimony was consistently not credible.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	Applicant has a long sorted criminal history. His willingness to hide his past and lack of truthfulness demonstrates questionable judgment and a pattern of dishonesty that makes him vulnerable as a security risk.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.d	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant deliberately failed to divulge on his SCA all of his transgressions with regard to his past felony criminal conduct, other criminal offenses and his wages being garnished.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

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

—

1.b

Applicant's testimony was consistently not credible.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

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

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

—

1.c

Applicant has a long sorted criminal history. His willingness to hide his past and lack of truthfulness demonstrates questionable judgment and a pattern of dishonesty that makes him vulnerable as a security risk.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

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

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

—

1.d

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2005. No assets were reported and his debts were discharged on April 27, 2005. Applicant claimed the only debt that was discharged was a car debt for repossession and he reaffirmed his other debts.	For Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2005. No assets were reported and his debts were discharged on April 27, 2005. Applicant claimed the only debt that was discharged was a car debt for repossession and he reaffirmed his other debts.

For Applicant

Bankruptcy Filing

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.e	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a–2.e

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

Against Applicant

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES