Summary
A 35-year-old industrial engineer was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several issues, including the applicant's use of a company computer to attempt to sell satellite programming cards from equipment not legitimately purchased, which led to his termination. Additionally, the applicant was charged with Misdemeanor/Petty Theft, to which he pleaded nolo contendere, and was arrested for driving a boat under the influence of alcohol.
Disqualifying conditions 16(c), 16(d), 31(a), and 31(c) were raised. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions 17(c), 32(a), and 32(d). The decision to grant the clearance was based on the applicant's strong work history and positive letters of recommendation.
Crucially, there had been a three-year absence of any criminal or personal misconduct. The judge concluded that the applicant's past conduct was minor and unconnected, indicating a change in maturity, and that his current reliability and trustworthiness warranted the granting of the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant established a strong work history and received positive letters of recommendation.
- There was a three-year absence of any criminal or personal misconduct.
- The judge found the applicant's past conduct to be minor and unconnected, indicating a change in maturity.
Conditions Referenced
- 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative AreasThe applicant's past conduct raised concerns about judgment and reliability.
- 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other GuidelineThe applicant's history of personal misconduct and criminal activity was considered.
- 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser OffensesThe applicant had multiple instances of lesser offenses.
- 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal ConductThe applicant admitted to past criminal conduct.
- 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor or so Much Time Has PassedThe judge found the past offenses to be minor and unlikely to recur.
- 32(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal BehaviorThe applicant had not engaged in criminal behavior for several years.
- 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant demonstrated good employment history and personal growth.
Key Rule Quoted
“"any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with the interests of national security will be resolved in favor of the nation’s security."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJun 14, 2007
- Answer filedJul 19, 2007
- Hearing heldNov 8, 2007
- Decision dateNov 30, 2007
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Evaluation of an Applicant's Maturity and Reliability Over Time