Summary
This case concerns a 63-year-old female applicant seeking a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), despite a history of multiple job terminations and workplace warnings. The Statement of Reasons detailed twelve allegations, including terminations in July 2000 for poor performance and unexcused absence, and in July 2003 for both reporting fraudulent activity and poor performance after reporting overbilling. Further terminations occurred in November 2004, April 2005, January 2006, March 2010, August 2011, and October 2012, often cited as related to complaints or retaliation.
The applicant also received a verbal warning in March 2016 and a written warning in April 2016 for violating discrimination policy, culminating in a termination in April 2016 for unprofessional and threatening conduct. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16(d) and AG ¶ 16(e) were raised.
However, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), and AG ¶ 17(f), ultimately granting the clearance. The decision emphasized the applicant's consistent explanations for her terminations, which demonstrated a lack of misconduct. Additionally, state employment agencies found insufficient evidence of misconduct in several termination cases, and the applicant's long employment history and favorable coworker evaluations supported her reliability.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant provided consistent explanations for her terminations, demonstrating a lack of misconduct.
- State employment agencies found insufficient evidence of misconduct in several termination cases.
- The applicant's long history of employment and favorable evaluations from coworkers supported her reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant's pattern of terminations raised questions about her reliability.
- AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating VulnerabilityThe applicant's conduct could be interpreted as poor judgment.
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's past conduct was infrequent and occurred under unique circumstances.
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment and Positive StepsThe applicant acknowledged her past behavior and took steps to improve communication.
- AG ¶ 17(f)appliedUnsubstantiated InformationState agencies found no misconduct connected to the applicant's terminations.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 25, 2019
- Answer filedApr 26, 2019
- Hearing heldSep 4, 2019
- Decision dateApr 30, 2020
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
- Consideration of State Agency Findings in Employment Termination Cases
- Importance of Consistent Explanations in Security Clearance Evaluations