Summary
A 47-year-old nuclear engineer was granted a security clearance despite a history of six arrests between 1999 and 2005, primarily involving family disputes and DUI charges. The Statement of Reasons detailed three arrests related to family disputes, which were dismissed, including two not guilty findings. His most serious arrest occurred in 2002, where he entered an Alfred plea to misdemeanor charges while maintaining his innocence.
Additionally, the applicant faced two DUI arrests. The earlier DUI was more than three years old, and he was found not guilty of the more recent DUI arrest. Other incidents included a criminal complaint filed by his wife in January 2004 alleging threatening phone calls, a DUI arrest in April 2004 after a work celebration, and a criminal property damage charge filed by his daughter in November 2004. A final DUI charge, first offense, occurred in January 2005 while he was sleeping in his van.
The administrative judge found that the applicant successfully mitigated concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Mitigation was supported by his completion of a relationship-building program after a domestic dispute, leading to charge dismissals. Furthermore, his DUI conviction was over three years old, and he demonstrated changed behavior by refraining from drinking and driving thereafter. The not guilty finding for his second DUI arrest also helped mitigate concerns about his reliability, leading to the clearance being granted.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant completed a relationship-building program after a domestic dispute, leading to the dismissal of charges.
- The applicant's DUI conviction was over three years old, and he demonstrated changed behavior by not drinking and driving thereafter.
- The applicant's second DUI arrest resulted in a not guilty finding, mitigating concerns about his reliability.
Conditions referenced
- DC ¶ 31 (a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- DC ¶ 31 (c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- MC ¶ 32 (a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened
- MC ¶ 32 (c)appliedEvidence That the Person Did Not Commit the Offense
- MC ¶ 32 (d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
Key rule quoted
“The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedMar 13, 2007
- Answer filedMay 10, 2007
- Hearing heldOct 15, 2007Hearing rescheduled twice.
- Decision dateNov 19, 2007
Cite for
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Impact of Rehabilitation on Security Clearance Decisions
- Consideration of Unique Circumstances in Criminal Cases