ISCR Case 05-14716.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-14716.h1

grantedJun 7, 2006· Hon. Michael J. Breslin· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old applicant with a Computer Information Systems background was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged the applicant made false statements on her security clearance application. Specifically, she denied having property repossessed, having delinquent debts, and being charged with a crime within the preceding seven years. The SOR also alleged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for these false representations.

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. She resolved her financial issues and demonstrated a strong record of job performance following the falsifications. The judge determined that the false statements were an isolated incident, not recent, and did not indicate a pattern of behavior.

Furthermore, the applicant provided correct information to the government after her initial application. These mitigating factors, including her financial resolution, job performance, and subsequent honesty, led to the granting of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant resolved her financial problems and demonstrated excellent job performance since the falsifications.
The judge found the falsifications to be an isolated incident that was not recent and did not indicate a pattern of behavior.
The applicant provided correct information to the government after the initial application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily
E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.2appliedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident
E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThe Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedClear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”
— Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 19, 2006
Answer filedFeb 2, 2006
Hearing heldApr 19, 2006
Decision dateJun 7, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E Due to Isolated Incidents
Successful Rehabilitation and Resolution of Financial Issues as Mitigating Factors
Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations

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	In response to Question 35, Applicant denied that she had any property repossessed within the preceding seven years.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—
1.b	In response to Questions 38 and 39 concerning her delinquent debts, Applicant answered 'No.'	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly
1.c	In response to Question 26, Applicant denied that she had been charged with a crime within the preceding seven years.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	The SOR alleges security concerns under the Directive, Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and Guideline J, Criminal Conduct.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	The fact that charges were filed may be sufficient to raise a concern, but it is not compelling evidence that the underlying conduct occurred.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

In response to Question 35, Applicant denied that she had any property repossessed within the preceding seven years.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

—

1.b

In response to Questions 38 and 39 concerning her delinquent debts, Applicant answered 'No.'

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

Claimed

Corrected Falsification Promptly

1.c

In response to Question 26, Applicant denied that she had been charged with a crime within the preceding seven years.

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

1.d

The SOR alleges security concerns under the Directive, Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and Guideline J, Criminal Conduct.

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

1.e

The fact that charges were filed may be sufficient to raise a concern, but it is not compelling evidence that the underlying conduct occurred.

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR, ¶ 2.a, alleges Applicant violated the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, by making false representations on her security clearance application.	For 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	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The SOR, ¶ 2.a, alleges Applicant violated the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, by making false representations on her security clearance application.

For 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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES