DATE: April 21, 2006

-----------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Jennifer I. Campbell, Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

SYNOPSIS

Applicant intentionally concealed her criminal history from the Government. Determination of Trustworthiness is denied.

On April 9, 1993, the Composite Health Care System Program Office (CHCSPO), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASDC3I), entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which gave DOHA the responsibility to provide trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2R, Personnel Security Program, dated January 1987.

On August 26, 2005, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness, suitability, and eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position (ADP-I/II/III).

Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on October 11, 2005, and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to the undersigned on November 28, 2005. A Notice of Hearing was issued on March 8, 2006, and the hearing was held on March 28, 2006. The transcript was received on April 7, 2006.

Applicant is 54 years of age.

Applicant executed a Public Trust Position Application (PTPA) on January 16, 2002 (Exhibit 1). In response to Question 16, which asked, "In the last 7 years have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s)? (Leave out traffic fines of less than $150.)" applicant stated "no." This was false. In fact, as a result of her participation in a fraudulent credit card scheme, she had been convicted of various offenses, including felonies, by State and Federal authorities in or around1998.

Applicant has given various reasons for not disclosing her criminal background in response to Question 16. In a signed, sworn statement she gave to an OPM investigator in August 2003 (Exhibit 2), she stated: "I did not list this arrest on the paperwork for a couple of reasons. I was moving at the time and all of my paperwork with the dates were in storage. Secondly, I felt that I had paid my debt to society and I shouldn't have to list it - even though I knew I should." At the hearing, she testified she was concerned that the information she provided on the PTPA might be disclosed to coworkers, something she did not want to happen (TR at 19, 31). In her mind, she was in a "trap." As she explained it, if she disclosed her criminal background on the PTPA, her coworkers might find out about it. If she didn't disclose it, "the Department of Defense representatives are going to come get me" (TR at 31). In the end, she made the decision not to tell the truth.

When faced with a question calling for her to disclose her criminal history, applicant thought about it and ultimately decided not to tell the truth. This intentional falsification of material facts is extremely troubling. The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking and occupying ADP positions. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a PTPA, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of individuals occupying ADP positions. Applicant's intentional falsification requires application of Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . .). No Mitigating Conditions apply. Based on the foregoing, Guideline E is found against applicant.

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness, suitability and eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position.