Summary
The applicant, a 33-year-old single woman, was denied eligibility for a trustworthiness determination under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline J (criminal conduct) due to falsifications on public trust applications regarding a criminal charge and financial delinquencies. The judge found that the applicant's omissions demonstrated a lack of candor and raised significant trustworthiness concerns that were not mitigated.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant falsified two public trust position applications completed in December 2002 and August 2004, respectively, by failing to disclose a criminal charge and some financial delinquencies, as required (1.a). Applicant failed to list a delinquency owed to a department store in the amount of $141 (1.b(1)). Applicant failed to list a delinquency owed to a credit card company in the amount of $966 (1.b(2)). Applicant omitted three additional delinquent phone accounts in the respective amounts of $284, $570, and $979 (1.c). Applicant did not list a delinquent cable television bill in the amount of $240 (1.d(1)). Applicant's explanation for failing to list the marijuana charge on Question 20 of the SF-85P was disingenuous (1.d(2)). Applicant's lack of credibility in response to Question 20 of the 2002 SF-85P fatally undermines her credibility with respect to her explanation for omitting the financial information from the SF-85P applications (1.d(3)). Applicant's drug-related arrests and subsequent falsification of two SF-85P's demonstrate a pattern of criminal behavior (1.d(4)). Applicant's outlandish explanation for her marijuana arrest of 2000 and her willingness to violate federal law by failing to disclose the arrest generate trustworthiness concerns that she failed to mitigate (1.d(5)). Applicant's explanation for omitting the financial information from the SF-85P applications was not credible (1.d(6)). Applicant stated she had no additional problems with illegal drugs 'as a result of this matter.' (1.e).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2, J1, J2. The decision turned on the following: The applicant falsified two public trust position applications by omitting a criminal charge and financial delinquencies; The judge found the applicant's explanations for the omissions to be disingenuous and lacking credibility; The applicant's pattern of criminal behavior and failure to mitigate trustworthiness concerns led to a denial of eligibility.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant falsified two public trust position applications by omitting a criminal charge and financial delinquencies.
- The judge found the applicant's explanations for the omissions to be disingenuous and lacking credibility.
- The applicant's pattern of criminal behavior and failure to mitigate trustworthiness concerns led to a denial of eligibility.
Conditions Referenced
- E2appliedPersonal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 2
- J1appliedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 1
- J2appliedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 2
Key Rule Quoted
“"Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 14, 2006
- Answer filedMar 27, 2006
- Hearing held—Applicant requested an administrative determination in lieu of a hearing.
- Decision dateOct 31, 2006
Cite For
- Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J
- Lack of Credibility in Applicant's Explanations for Omissions