CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-09433.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-09433.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-09433.h1

deniedNov 3, 2006· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old site rodbuster was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a long history of criminal conduct, predominantly alcohol-related offenses, and the falsification of his security clearance application.

The applicant's criminal record spans from approximately 1976 to 2005, including numerous arrests and convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and other traffic offenses. Specific incidents include multiple DWI arrests and convictions in the late 1970s and early 1980s, further DWI charges and convictions in the 1990s and early 2000s, and a 2005 conviction for battery-domestic violence. He also received counseling for alcohol use in 1998 and served jail time on several occasions, though never for more than one year.

Additionally, the applicant provided deliberately false answers on his June 2005 security clearance application. He failed to report the pending 2005 battery-domestic violence offense and omitted numerous other DWI charges and convictions, reporting only a single 2002 DWI. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from his extensive criminal history and the deliberate omissions in his application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a decades-long history of criminal conduct, primarily involving alcohol-related offenses.
Applicant provided false answers on his security clearance application regarding his police record.
Applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
DC 1appliedA History or Pattern of Criminal Conduct
DC 2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination of an applicant's loyalty. Instead, it is a determination that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for a security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 6, 2006
Answer filedMay 8, 2006Applicant did not request a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was conducted.
Decision dateNov 3, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive History of Alcohol-related Offenses
Falsification of Security Clearance Application as a Disqualifying Factor
Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Under Multiple Guidelines

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant deliberately provided false answers on his security clearance application regarding his criminal record, which raised significant personal conduct concerns. The applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	In June 2005, Applicant completed a security-clearance application for his employer. In completing the application, he was required to truthfully answer questions about his background. The SOR alleges that Applicant gave deliberately false answers to two questions.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	In response to Question 23, he answered "no" and did not report the 2005 battery-domestic violence offense that was then pending. In response to Question 24, he answered "yes" and reported a single DWI offense from 2002. He did not report any of the other DWI charges and convictions detailed above.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant has a long history of alcohol-related offenses, including multiple DWI arrests and convictions. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption, resulting in numerous arrests and convictions for alcohol-related incidents, mostly DWI offenses.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	The applicant was arrested and charged with DWI in 1976.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	The applicant was arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI in 1978.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	The applicant was arrested and charged with DWI in 1980.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.e	The applicant was arrested and charged with DWI and leaving the scene of an accident in 1981.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.f	The applicant was arrested and charged with DWI on two occasions in March 1982.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.g	The applicant was arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI in August 1982.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.h	The applicant was arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI, speeding, driving with a license, traffic lane violation, and false report in October 1982.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.i	The applicant was arrested and charged with DWI, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and two traffic offenses in March 1985. Convicted of DWI and the other matters were dismissed.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.j	The applicant was arrested and charged with open container, DWI, and failure to maintain lane in 1994. The charges were nolle prossed.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.k	The applicant was arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI in March 1997.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.l	The applicant was arrested and charged with DWI and child abuse in June 1997.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.m	The applicant received counseling for alcohol use in 1998.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—
1.n	The applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated DWI and a traffic offense in 1999. Both charges were dismissed.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.o	The applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated DWI and a traffic offense in 2001. Convicted of DWI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.p	The applicant was arrested and charged with battery-domestic violence in 2005. Denies being convicted, but the record evidence proves otherwise.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—
1.q–1.r	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown).	Mixed			—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant has a long history of criminal conduct, primarily involving alcohol-related offenses, which raised significant security concerns. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns and ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of criminal conduct from about 1976 to about 2005, including numerous arrests and convictions for alcohol-related offenses, such as driving while intoxicated (DWI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	The applicant was arrested and charged with DWI in 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982 (twice), and 1997, and has multiple convictions for DWI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	The applicant was arrested and charged with battery-domestic violence in 2005 and was convicted, despite his denial of the conviction.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.d	The applicant has served jail time on several occasions, never more than one year, for various offenses.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.e	The applicant provided false answers on his security clearance application regarding his criminal history, including a pending domestic violence charge.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.f	The applicant's history of criminal conduct creates doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.g	The applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns stemming from his criminal conduct.	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	—	—
2.h	The applicant's last conviction was in 2005, indicating a pattern of behavior that is likely to recur.	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	—	—
2.i	The applicant has not demonstrated a long-term period of abstinence or a commitment to a law-abiding lifestyle.	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	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: November 3, 2006

In re: ------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance

CR Case No. 05-09433 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MICHAEL H. LEONARD

SYNOPSIS Applicant has a decades-long history of criminal conduct consisting of arrests and convictions for alcohol-related offenses and other offenses. He gave two false answers about his police record when he completed a security-clearance application in June 2005. He failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns stemming from these matters. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

Applicant is challenging the Defense Department's preliminary decision to deny or revoke his eligibility for a security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive, (1) on April 6, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision. The SOR-- which is in essence the administrative complaint--alleges security concerns under Guideline G for alcohol consumption, Guideline J for criminal conduct, and Guideline E for personal conduct (falsification). In a response dated May 8, 2006, Applicant replied to the SOR and indicated he did not wish to have a hearing. On June 22, 2006, department counsel submitted his written case consisting of all relevant and material information that could be adduced at a hearing. This so-called file of relevant material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant and it was received by him on July 31, 2006. Applicant submitted additional documentary information within the 30-day period after receiving the FORM. The case was assigned to me September 18, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his response to the SOR, Applicant admits many of the factual allegations in the SOR and his admissions will be discussed below. In addition, I make the following findings of fact. 1. Applicant is a 50-year-old man who is employed as a site rodbuster. He has worked for his current employer since June 2005. He is seeking to obtain a security clearance for his employment with a federal contractor. Before his current job, Applicant has been employed for many years doing concrete and carpenter work. 2. His security-clearance application indicates he has never married. But other information in the FORM indicates he has been married for many years and has a child. 3. Applicant has a history of criminal conduct from about 1976 to about 2005. His offenses primarily involve alcohol- related incidents, such as driving while intoxicated (DWI). In his eight-page response to the SOR, Applicant addressed his alcohol consumption and criminal record, and he admitted the following alcohol-related incidents: Arrested and charged with DWI in 1976. Arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI in 1978. Arrested and charged with DWI in 1980. Arrested and charged with DWI and leaving the scene of an accident in 1981. Arrested and charged with DWI on two occasions in March 1982. Arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI in August 1982. Arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI, speeding, driving with a license, traffic lane violation, and false report in October 1982. Arrested and charged with DWI, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and two traffic offenses in March 1985. Convicted of DWI and the other matters were dismissed. Arrested and charged with open container, DWI, and failure to maintain lane in 1994. The charges were nolle prossed. Arrested, charged, and convicted of DWI in March 1997. Arrested and charged with DWI and child abuse in June 1997. Received counseling for alcohol use in 1998. Arrested and charged with aggravated DWI and a traffic offense in 1999. Both charges were dismissed. Arrested and charged with aggravated DWI and a traffic offense in 2001. Convicted of DWI. Arrested and charged with battery-domestic violence in 2005. Denies being convicted, but the record evidence (Exhibit 12) proves otherwise. 4. In addition to his alcohol-related incidents, Applicant admitted the following: Arrested and charged with possession of hashish in 1977. Arrested and charged with interference in 1978. Arrested and charged with obstructing traffic in 1981. Arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in 1982. Arrested, charged, and convicted of driving on a suspended license, unlawful alter/forging a driver's license, and a traffic offense in 1986. Arrested, charged, and convicted of battery-domestic violence in 1989. Also, Applicant was arrested, charged, and convicted for failure to appear in connection with the 2005 battery-domestic violence case. He has served jail time (never more than one year) on several occasions. 5. In June 2005, Applicant completed a security-clearance application for his employer. In completing the application, he was required to truthfully answer questions about his background. The SOR alleges that Applicant gave deliberately false answers to two questions. Each is discussed below. 6. In response to Question 23, (2) he answered "no" and did not report the 2005 battery-domestic violence offense that was then pending. In response to Question 24, (3) he answered "yes" and reported a single DWI offense from 2002. He did not report any of the other DWI charges and convictions detailed above. 7. In his response to the FORM, Applicant submitted a letter of recommendation, a court record concerning his alcohol treatment, and a newspaper article. In the letter of recommendation, his project engineer for about four months gives Applicant a strong recommendation based on his hard work and taking the initiative to get the job done. The court record reflects Applicant received alcohol treatment in December 2005 for 28 days. The comments and recommendations include the following: (1) Applicant did well concerning assignments and got along well with peers and staff; (2) he was advised to avoid substance use in the future; (3) he was referred to 12-step programs for follow-up and support of an abstinent lifestyle; (4) he was encouraged to complete his education and develop hobbies to occupy his free time; and (5) it was noted he is quite sociable and amicable when he wants to be and when he is sober. There is no mention of either a diagnosis or prognosis. The newspaper article was a feature article about Applicant's abilities as an artist and it reported that he won the best of show award at a local county fair. The article notes that Applicant's art career includes stone carving, painting, and jewelry making. Also, the article notes that Applicant has had a long rodeo career as a bronco rider. 8. In his written response to the FORM, Applicant asserts that he was grown as a person, respects his country, and would never do anything to harm it. Also, he admits making mistakes in his past and points out that he has paid for his mistakes.

POLICIES

The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a person's security clearance eligibility, including disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) for each guideline. In addition, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information, the pertinent criteria and adjudication factors, and the whole-person concept. (4) A person granted access to classified information enters into a special relationship with the government. The government must be able to have a high degree of trust and confidence in those persons to whom it grants access to classified information. The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination of an applicant's loyalty. (5) Instead, it is a determination that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for a security clearance. BURDEN OF PROOF The only purpose of a security-clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant. (6) There is no presumption in favor of granting or continuing access to classified information. (7) The government has the burden of presenting witnesses and other evidence to establish facts alleged in the SOR that have been controverted. (8) An applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts that have been admitted or proven. (9) In addition, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. (10)

No one has a right to a security clearance. (11) And as noted by the Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." (12) Under Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive, any doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information will be resolved in favor of protecting national security.

CONCLUSION

1. The Alcohol Consumption Security Concern Under Guideline G, (13) a history of excessive alcohol consumption raises a security concern because of the potential for deliberate or inadvertent mishandling of classified information due to intoxication. The concern is that excessive consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to carelessness. Here, based on the record evidence as a whole, the government established its case under Guideline G. The record evidence is clear--Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption resulting in numerous arrests and convictions for alcohol-related incidents, mostly DWI offenses. His multiple arrests and convictions for DWI are of special concern because his repetitive conduct indicates a tendency toward reckless behavior or an unwillingness to comply with the law. Given the facts here, DC 1 (14)--alcohol-related incidents away from work--applies against Applicant. The record evidence is filled with incidents or allegations of criminal conduct directly related to Applicant's alcohol use. I reviewed the MC under the guideline and conclude none apply. Applicant has not presented a persuasive case that his alcohol-related incidents are a thing of the past. What's needed here is a long-term period of abstinence along with a long-term period of no further alcohol-related incidents. At this point, it is too soon to tell if Applicant will follow through and be able to maintain a sober lifestyle. 2. The Criminal Conduct Security Concern Under Guideline J, (15) criminal conduct is a concern because a history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. A history of illegal behavior indicates an individual may be inclined to break, disregard, or fail to comply with regulations, practices, or procedures concerning safeguarding and handling sensitive information. Here, based on the record evidence as a whole, a security concern is raised under Guideline J. The record evidence shows Applicant has a history or pattern of criminal conduct over many years. He has numerous arrests, several convictions, and has served jail time. Given these facts and circumstances, both DC 1 (16) and DC 2 (17) apply against Applicant. His history of criminal conduct creates doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. I reviewed the MC under the guideline and conclude none apply. Applicant has not presented a persuasive case that his history of criminal conduct is a thing of the past unlikely to recur. At this point, it is too soon to tell if Applicant will follow through and be a law-abiding citizen. 3. The Personal Conduct Security Concern Personal conduct under Guideline E (18) is always a security concern because it asks the central question: Does a person's past conduct justify confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified information. Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the government when applying for a security clearance or in other official matters is a security concern. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully. An omission of relevant and material information is not deliberate if the person genuinely forgot about it, inadvertently overlooked it, misunderstood the question, or genuinely thought the information did not need to be reported. Here, based on the record evidence as a whole, a security concern is raised under Guideline E. The record evidence shows Applicant deliberately provided false answers to Questions 23 and 24 concerning his pending offense and his alcohol-related offenses. (19) Applicant was required to give full, frank, and truthful answers to these questions and it's plainly obviously that he did not. His false answers in response to two questions on his security-clearance application show questionable judgment, lack of candor, unreliability, and untrustworthiness. I reviewed the MC under the guideline and conclude none apply. Making false statements during the security-clearance process is a serious matter, not easily explained away, extenuated, or mitigated. 4. The Whole-Person Concept I considered the available information in light of the whole-person concept. Applicant is now a 50-year-old man and was a mature adult when most of his alcohol-related troubles took place. (20) In other words, he was old enough to know better. His has an extensive history of criminal conduct (mostly alcohol-related offenses), and his last conviction was in 2005. (21) His overall situation appears to be a firmly ingrained pattern of behavior that is likely to recur. Also, he did not present a persuasive case that his alcohol-related troubles are behind him and what steps and actions he is doing to accomplish this task (22) More troubling, however, are his false answers on his June 2005 security-clearance application, which are serious matters as well as constituting criminal conduct under federal law. (23) Considering the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns arising under Guidelines G, J, and E. And he has not met his ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.

FORMAL FINDINGS

The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR: SOR ¶ 1-Guideline G: Against Applicant Subparagraphs a-r: Against Applicant SOR ¶ 2-Guideline J: Against Applicant Subparagraphs a-i: Against Applicant SOR ¶ 3--Guideline E: Against Applicant Subparagraphs a-b: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied. Michael H. Leonard Administrative Judge 1. Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). 2. "Are there currently any charges pending against you for any criminal offenses?" 3. "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?" 4. Directive, Item E2.2.1. 5. Executive Order 10865, § 7. 6. ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at p. 2. 7. ISCR Case No. 02-18663 (March 23, 2004) at p. 5. 8. Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.14. 9. Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15. 10. Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15. 11. Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) ("it should be obvious that no one has a 'right' to a security clearance"); Duane v. Department of Defense, 275 F.3d 988, 994 (10th Cir. 2002) ("It is likewise plain that there is no 'right' to a security clearance, so that full-scale due process standards do not apply to cases such as Duane's.") (citations omitted). 12. 484 U.S. at 531. 13. Directive, Enclosure 2, Attachment 7 (setting forth the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 14. Item E2.A7.1.2.1. 15. Directive, Enclosure 2, Attachment 10 (setting forth the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 16. Directive, Item E2.A10.1.2.1. Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged. 17. Directive, Item E2.A10.1.2.2. A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses. 18. Directive, Enclosure 2, Attachment 5 (setting forth the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 19. Directive, Item E2.A5.1.2.2. The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. 20. Directive, Item E2.2.1.4. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct. 21. Directive, Item E2.2.1.9. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 22. Directive, Item E2.2.1.6. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes. 23. Directive, Item E2.2.1.1. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct.

FOOTNOTES

05-09433.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Edward W. Loughran, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-09433.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:49:25 PM] 05-09433.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-09433.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:49:25 PM] 05-09433.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-09433.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:49:25 PM] 05-09433.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-09433.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:49:25 PM] 05-09433.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-09433.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:49:25 PM] 05-09433.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-09433.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:49:25 PM]