Lying About a DUI Charge Costs Applicant Clearance Eligibility

I see this over and over in security clearance denial cases. The applicant fails to disclose something that in and of itself is not serious or disqualifying for clearance eligibility. However, by doing that they have now created a new issue that is potentially disqualifying under the adjudicative guidelines for personal conduct. Here are the highlights of a recent Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals case.

The contractor, an Army veteran, filled out his SF-86 application in 2023 and did not list any arrests or charges in the police record section. During his security interview with the background investigator, he was asked if he had been involved in any criminal activity, and he again denied having been arrested or charged with anything. He was then confronted with a 2019 DUI arrest which was later amended to reckless driving after agreeing to complete a pre-trial diversion program. He claimed to have not listed them because he thought his lawyer got the charges dropped.

The judge in this case noted that the applicant was 30 years old, educated, had been through the clearance process in the military, and would have known the 2019 DUI arrest was reportable. During testimony at his appeal, the contractor stated he didn’t think there would be a record of the charges, cementing the appearance of deliberately hiding the information from coming to light. He lied again when asked directly during his interview. Had the contractor been honest and up front about his arrest, he would have been granted a security clearance. By intentionally withholding reportable information he cast doubt on his integrity and trustworthiness – clearance eligibility denied.