Summary
A 47-year-old defense contractor employee was denied eligibility for a Common Access Card (CAC) due to concerns under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct. The applicant's history included multiple incidents of violence and dishonesty, leading to several allegations of criminal or dishonest conduct.
Disqualifying conditions raised included a pattern of criminal conduct, a history of violent behavior, and a failure to take responsibility for past actions. While mitigating conditions such as the passage of time since the last offense, completion of an anger management program, and expungement of arrests were considered, they were ultimately insufficient.
The denial was based on the applicant's history of violent incidents against multiple individuals. The judge found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, noting a persistent pattern of anger and violence. Ultimately, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or that future criminal conduct was unlikely, leading to the denial of his CAC eligibility.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant's history of criminal conduct included multiple incidents of violence against different individuals.
- The judge found the applicant's testimony not credible, citing a pattern of anger and violence.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or that further criminal conduct was unlikely to recur.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 2(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses Which Put the Safety of People at Risk or Threaten the Protection of Property or Information.
- AG ¶ 2(b)raisedCharges or Admission of Criminal Conduct Relating to the Safety of People and Proper Protection of Property or Information Systems, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted, or Convicted.
- AG ¶ 2(e)raisedActions Involving Violence or Sexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature That Poses an Unacceptable Risk If Access Is Granted to Federally-controlled Facilities and Federally-controlled Information Systems.
- AG ¶ 2(c)rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Minor in Nature, or Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur.The judge found the applicant's pattern of conduct concerning and not unlikely to recur.
- AG ¶ 2(d)rejectedCharges Were Dismissed or Evidence Was Provided That the Person Did Not Commit the Offense and Details and Reasons Support His or Her Innocence.The applicant's denials were not credible, and the judge found sufficient evidence of the underlying offenses.
- AG ¶ 2(f)rejectedEvidence Has Been Supplied of Successful Rehabilitation, Including but Not Limited to Remorse or Restitution, Job Training or Higher Education, Good Employment Record, Constructive Community Involvement, or Passage of Time Without Recurrence.The judge was not convinced of the applicant's rehabilitation.
Key Rule Quoted
“A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable basis to believe, based on the individual’s criminal or dishonest conduct, that issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 16, 2016
- Answer filedAug 5, 2016
- Hearing heldJun 27, 2017
- Decision dateJan 9, 2018
Cite For
- Credibility Assessments in Cases Involving Multiple Allegations of Violence
- The Impact of Expunged Criminal Records on Security Clearance Determinations
- The Necessity of Demonstrating Rehabilitation in Cases of Past Criminal Conduct