Former DoD Employee Sentenced for False Statements on Security Clearance Application

A former Department of Defense employee has been sentenced to probation for lying about her contacts with a foreign government, according to federal authorities.^[1]

This past Tuesday, Beatrice C. Ruiz of Norwalk was sentenced to two years probation and a $250 fine by Judge Ellen Bree Burns. Ruiz pled guilty in New Haven federal court last year to one count of making a false statement.^[2]

Ruiz was formerly a Department of Defense engineer at Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford. On her application for a top secret security clearance the 56-year-old denied having any contact with a foreign government.^[3]

However, authorities have stated that Ruiz had a social and business relationship for nearly ten years with an official of the Colombian consulate in New York.^[4]

Ruiz and the government agreed that her social and business activities were intended for her personal benefit. The evidence does not suggest that she misused classified information or harmed the security interests of the United States.^[5]

Making false statements is a federal crime covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), which makes it a crime for a person, “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive” branch of the US government, to knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation. The punishment for violating this section 1001(a) is a fine, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.^[6]

Applicants for security clearances are required to submit a Standard Form 86 (SF-86). The SF 86 seeks to information used primarily as the basis for investigation for access to classified information. Applicants must answer the questions posed on the SF 86 truthfully or be criminally liable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Falsification of answers in a security clearance investigation, particularly on the SF 86, are a common occurrence. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals recognizes that making a false statement also implicates 18 U.S.C. § 1001. However, the fact that the Applicant was not charged with falsification under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 will not absolve him or her of imputed criminal conduct for the purpose of assessing clearance suitability.^[7]

Individuals who are denied a security clearance because of falsification of answers can attempt to mitigate their false statement and have an unfavorable decision overturned. In order to mitigate a previous false statement, the Applicant must come forward - before being confronted by the investigatory agent - and make a prompt, good faith disclosure of the truth.^[8] If an applicant does not step forward and the false statement is uncovered during the course an investigation then the likelihood of mitigating the false statement is substantially reduced.

Federal criminal defense attorney, Douglas McNabb, has written extensively on the crime of false statements. His work in that area can be seen here.

---

[1] The Associated Press, Former DoD Employee Gets Probation For Lying, The Associated Press, March 18, 2008 (available at www.nydailynews.com).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
[7] Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, ADP Case No. 94-0215.
[8] Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, ADP Case No. 93-1390.