Summary
This case concerns a 34-year-old quality engineer whose eligibility for a security clearance was reviewed under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons raised concerns regarding a March 2013 allegation of larceny of government property and conspiracy while working as a civilian contractor, and an August 2014 charge of harassment. Additionally, the applicant was terminated from a delivery-driver position in December 2016 for late deliveries and a missing package, leading to an allegation of falsifying his May 2019 security clearance application by omitting these details.
The judge found insufficient evidence to support the larceny allegations, noting the applicant was never formally charged with any crime related to that incident. The harassment charge was dismissed, and no similar incidents have occurred since. The applicant further demonstrated good character and reliability through positive testimonials from colleagues and supervisors.
Considering these factors, the judge determined that the disqualifying conditions were mitigated. The applicant's good character and employment history were noted, and eligibility for a security clearance was GRANTED.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant was never formally charged with any crime related to the alleged larceny incident.
- The harassment charge was dismissed, and there were no further similar incidents since then.
- The applicant demonstrated good character and reliability through positive testimonials from colleagues and supervisors.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 16(a)raisedPersonal Conduct
- AG ¶ 32(a)appliedCriminal ConductThe criminal behavior occurred a long time ago and is unlikely to recur.
- AG ¶ 32(c)appliedCriminal ConductThere is no reliable evidence to support the individual's involvement in the alleged offenses.
- AG ¶ 32(d)appliedCriminal ConductThe applicant has shown evidence of rehabilitation through stable employment and education.
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's past performance issues were not indicative of current reliability or trustworthiness.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedApr 9, 2020
- Answer filedMay 9, 2020
- Hearing heldAug 17, 2021via video conference
- Decision dateDec 23, 2021
Cite For
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Lack of Evidence
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Based on Character References
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions.