Summary
A 61-year-old information technology specialist was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant was alleged to have stolen IT equipment from his employer and sold it to resolve financial problems, violating a written commitment made as a condition of employment.
The applicant admitted to stealing the equipment for financial reasons. However, the administrative judge found his conflicting statements during the hearing undermined his credibility. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 16(g) and AG ¶ 31(b) were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17(c) and AG ¶ 32(a) were considered.
Despite the applicant's long history of service, the judge concluded that his actions demonstrated a lack of good judgment and trustworthiness. The theft constituted significant criminal and personal conduct violations, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to stealing IT equipment from his employer to resolve financial problems.
- The judge found the applicant's conflicting statements during the hearing undermined his credibility.
- The applicant's actions demonstrated a lack of good judgment and trustworthiness required for security clearance.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(g)raisedViolation of a Written or Recorded Commitment Made by an Individual to the Employer as a Condition of Employment
- AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Individual Was Formally Charged, Prosecuted, or Convicted
- AG ¶ 17(c)rejectedThe Significance and Recency of the Misconduct, the Circumstances Under Which the Misconduct Occurred, the Likelihood of Recurrence, and the Continued Impact of the Misconduct of the Applicant’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe judge found the applicant's single act of misconduct was not insignificant and raised concerns about his ongoing security worthiness.
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedThe Significance and Recency of the Misconduct, the Circumstances Under Which the Misconduct Occurred, the Likelihood of Recurrence, and the Continued Impact of the Misconduct of the Applicant’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe judge concluded that the applicant's conduct showed he no longer possessed the good judgment required for access to classified information.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 12, 2020
- Answer filed—
- Hearing heldNov 18, 2020
- Decision dateMar 31, 2021
Cite For
- Disqualifying Conduct Under Criminal Conduct and Personal Conduct Guidelines
- Credibility Issues Arising From Conflicting Statements During Hearings
- The Paramount Consideration of National Security in Security Clearance Decisions.