Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 35-year-old male employed as a mover for a defense contractor, faced issues under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of criminal offenses, including multiple moving violations and an Assault and Battery conviction. The judge found that the applicant's failure to fulfill court-ordered sentencing requirements and his falsification of his criminal history on the security clearance application demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Applicant intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process (2.a). The Applicant was charged with (1) No insurance and (2) Failure to appear. He was driving without a license and was pulled over. As of January 2005, an outstanding fine of $1,600.00 was owed to the court for the offense. The fine remains owing. The Applicant stated that he has been too busy working and has not had the time to pay the fine. Following this offense, the Applicant continued to drive without a license and insurance (1.a). On September 27, 1997, the Applicant was charged with (1) Failure to Appear, (2) No License and (3) No Insurance. As of January 2005, an outstanding fine of $505.00 was owed to the court for the offense. The Applicant stated that he has not paid this fine either (1.b). On March 28, 1999, the Applicant was charged with (1) Driving With a Suspended License and (2) No Proof of Car Insurance. He was found guilty and was sentenced to summary probation for a period of 24 months and required to pay a fine of $300.00 plus a State Penalty Fund Assessment of $510.00, a $1.00 night court fee and a $35.00 Installment and Accounts Receivable Fee. In lieu of the fine the Applicant was given the option to perform 158 hours of community service and pay $100.00 in restitution. The Applicant failed to appear in court for proof of community service on January 9, 2002, and again on January 16, 2002. On February 8, 2005, a Bench Warrant for his arrest was issued in the amount of $12,500.00. The bench warrant is still outstanding and the fine remains owing (1.c). The Applicant was arrested on June 8, 1999, and charged with (1) Assault and (2) Battery. The Applicant explained that his pregnant girlfriend called the police and told them that the Applicant had beat her and that she was having a miscarriage. He contends that he did not hit his girlfriend, that she never went to the hospital, and that she did not have a miscarriage because his daughter was ultimately born from that pregnancy. The Applicant was found guilty of Count 1 and was sentenced to serve 90 days in jail and pay restitution of $100.00. Count 2 was dismissed. The Applicant served 45 days in county jail. As of January 4, 2005, the Applicant had not paid the $100.00 restitution. The Applicant states that he does plan to pay the restitution associated with this charge (1.d).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions J1, J2, E2. The decision turned on the following: The applicant has a history of criminal conduct, including multiple moving violations and an Assault and Battery conviction, which he failed to mitigate; The applicant has an outstanding warrant for his arrest and has not fulfilled court-ordered sentencing requirements, indicating ongoing issues with compliance and responsibility; The applicant intentionally falsified material information on his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of honesty and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant has a history of criminal conduct, including multiple moving violations and an Assault and Battery conviction, which he failed to mitigate.
• The applicant has an outstanding warrant for his arrest and has not fulfilled court-ordered sentencing requirements, indicating ongoing issues with compliance and responsibility.
• The applicant intentionally falsified material information on his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of honesty and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government relies heavily upon the integrity and honesty of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedSep 21, 2005
• Answer filedNov 8, 2005
• Hearing heldMar 7, 2006
• Decision dateMay 30, 2006

Cite For

• Denial of Clearance Due to Ongoing Criminal Conduct and Outstanding Warrants
• Impact of Falsification on Security Clearance Eligibility
• Lack of Mitigating Factors in Cases of Repeated Criminal Offenses