Summary
The applicant, a 40-year-old armed security officer and former U.S. Army member, faced allegations under Guideline E for personal conduct, including drunken misconduct and indecent exposure while in the Army, as well as a debarment related to drug activity. The administrative judge found that the government did not establish disqualifying conduct and that the applicant successfully mitigated the remaining concerns, resulting in a grant of eligibility for access to classified information.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant admitted that he accepted Article 15 punishment in 2015 when he was in the Army for drunken misconduct and indecent exposure (1.a). Applicant received a two-year debarment in August 2017, from all U.S. military facilities in South Korea for possession of opiates with intent to distribute, but he denied the underlying alleged offense (1.b). Applicant falsified material facts on his May 2020 security clearance application when he stated that his reason for leaving employment was because the contract ended, failing to mention he was barred from the military installation (1.c). Applicant falsified material facts during his June 2020 personal subject interview when he stated he was not one of the persons who removed their clothes, trying to conceal that his Article 15 offenses included indecent exposure (1.d). Applicant falsified material facts during his September 2020 personal subject interview when he initially stated he was unaware of the investigation that led to his debarment, but later admitted he was questioned by military police regarding possession of opiates (1.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(c), AG ¶ 16(e). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), AG ¶ 17(e), AG ¶ 17(f). The decision turned on the following: The government failed to establish disqualifying conduct related to the applicant's past actions; The applicant provided credible explanations for his conduct and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts; The applicant's psychological evaluation indicated no mental health issues affecting his reliability.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The government failed to establish disqualifying conduct related to the applicant's past actions.
- The applicant provided credible explanations for his conduct and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.
- The applicant's psychological evaluation indicated no mental health issues affecting his reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
- AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling
- AG ¶ 17(e)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability
- AG ¶ 17(f)appliedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or From a Source of Questionable Reliability
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 17, 2021
- Answer filedFeb 8, 2022
- Hearing heldApr 13, 2022
- Decision dateAug 12, 2022
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
- Credibility of Applicant's Explanations for Past Conduct
- Impact of Psychological Evaluations on Security Clearance Decisions