CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 97-0615.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 97-0615.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date3/17/1998
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Lokey Anderson
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations that demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability. The applicant's conduct included unauthorized personal use of company resources and theft, which raised significant security concerns.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 97-0615.h1

deniedMar 17, 1998· Hon. Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations, including the unauthorized use of a corporate credit card for personal purchases and making personal phone calls using company resources.

Crucially, the applicant stole $460 from his employer and initially denied the theft in a sworn statement. He later admitted to the theft after being offered a polygraph examination. This conduct was deemed to reflect a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations, constituting both personal and criminal misconduct.

The government alleged the applicant was ineligible due to the theft and knowingly violating federal criminal statutes by providing false information. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate trustworthiness or rehabilitation, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in personal conduct involving questionable judgment and dishonesty.
The applicant committed theft from his employer and lied about it, demonstrating untrustworthiness.
The applicant failed to provide evidence of rehabilitation or a change in behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters to an Investigator in Connection with a Personnel Security or Trustworthiness Determination.
E5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
J1raisedAny Criminal Conduct Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
J2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

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 an acceptable security risk.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 1, 1997
Answer filedOct 28, 1997Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateMar 17, 1998

Cite For

Pattern of Dishonesty and Rule Violations Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct and Theft Under Guideline J
Lack of Evidence for Rehabilitation or Trustworthiness.

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 against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations that demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability. The applicant's conduct included unauthorized personal use of company resources and theft, which raised significant security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant used his corporate credit card to purchase personal items without authorization.	Against Applicant	Misuse of Employer Time or Resources	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.b	The Applicant made personal telephone calls using the company telephone without authority.	Against Applicant	Misuse of Employer Time or Resources	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.c	The Applicant stole $460.00 from his employer and lied about it when confronted.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND 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.d	The Applicant provided a sworn statement denying the theft, which he later admitted after being offered a polygraph examination.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND 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.e	The Applicant's conduct reflects a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.a	The Applicant's theft of money from his employer constitutes criminal conduct.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	The Applicant knowingly and willfully violated federal criminal statutes by providing false information.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct, determining that the applicant engaged in theft and provided false information to authorities. The applicant's actions demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he stole money from his employer and he knowingly and willfully violated the felony provisions of 18 USC 1001, a federal criminal statute.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	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.b	The Applicant committed the crime of theft by stealing money from his employer, and he intentionally lied about it to his employer and the Department of Defense.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	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.