Summary
An engineering technician with prior military service was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a false statement made on his Security Clearance Application (SCA). The applicant falsely reported the circumstances of his employment termination.
The administrative judge initially issued a favorable decision, applying mitigating conditions under E3. However, the appeal board reversed this decision. The board found that the judge's credibility determinations were unsustainable, citing conflicting evidence from the applicant's former employer and a state authority that contradicted the applicant's account.
Furthermore, the board determined that the judge's conclusions regarding the infrequency of the applicant's misconduct and the extent of his remorse were not adequately supported by the evidence presented. Consequently, no security clearance was granted.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant made a false statement on the SCA regarding his employment termination.
- The judge's credibility determination was deemed unsustainable due to conflicting evidence from the employer and state authority.
- The judge's conclusions about the infrequency of misconduct and the applicant's remorse were not supported by the evidence.
Conditions Referenced
- E2raisedPersonal Conduct
- E3rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe judge's analysis of the applicant's remorse and the infrequency of misconduct was not supported by the record.
Key Rule Quoted
“The deference we owe to a Judge’s credibility determination has its limits.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedApr 15, 2011
- Answer filed—
- Hearing heldJan 27, 2012
- Decision dateApr 26, 2012
Cite For
- Reversal of Favorable Decision Based on Unsustainable Credibility Determinations
- Significance of False Statements in Security Clearance Applications
- Evaluation of Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline E