ISCR Case 06-22184.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-22184.h1

grantedJun 21, 2007· Hon. Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). These concerns stemmed from a 2002 guilty plea for possessing a fake ID and a 2005 domestic dispute.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested in September 2002 for possessing a fake ID, pled guilty, and was fined $100. The judge informed him that upon payment, the matter would be expunged, and the fine was paid. In October 2005, he was charged with simple assault/battery and refusal/relinquish of phones following a domestic dispute with his wife, though both charges were subsequently dropped. The applicant did not report the 2002 incident on his May 2005 security clearance application, nor did he update his application in January 2006 to include the dropped charges from the October 2005 dispute.

The judge found that the applicant mitigated these concerns. The applicant's 2002 conviction was expunged, and he genuinely believed it did not need to be reported. He also provided a reasonable explanation for not updating his application regarding the dropped domestic charges. Ultimately, there was no evidence of deliberate falsification in his security clearance application, leading to the decision to grant the clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's 2002 conviction was expunged, and he believed it did not need to be reported.
The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for not updating his application regarding the dropped domestic charges.
There was no evidence of deliberate falsification in the applicant's security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 1
J3raisedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 3
E16raisedPersonal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 16

Mitigating

J1appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 1The applicant's conviction occurred five years ago, and there have been no similar incidents since.
E16appliedPersonal Conduct Mitigating Condition 16The applicant's omission was not deliberate, as he misunderstood the reporting requirements.

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 issuedDec 28, 2006
Answer filedJan 9, 2007
Hearing held—Applicant elected to proceed on the written record.
Decision dateJun 21, 2007

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Due to Expungement
Reasonable Explanation for Omissions in Security Clearance Applications
Consideration of Applicant's Maturity and Circumstances in Granting Clearance

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately falsified material facts regarding his criminal record on his SF-86.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant deliberately falsified material facts regarding his criminal record on his SF-86.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In approximately September 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with possessing a fake ID. He pled guilty and was fined $100. The judge told him that upon payment of the fine, the matter would be expunged. The fine was paid.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.b	On October 8, 2005, Applicant and his wife had an argument or domestic dispute. Applicant was charged with 1) simple assault/battery and 2) refusal/relinquish of phones. Both charges were dropped.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant did not note the 2002 incident in his May 2005 security clearance application. When asked to up-date his work experience on his application in January 2006, he did not up-date facts to denote dropped charged arising from an October 2005 domestic dispute.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In approximately September 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with possessing a fake ID. He pled guilty and was fined $100. The judge told him that upon payment of the fine, the matter would be expunged. The fine was paid.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.b

On October 8, 2005, Applicant and his wife had an argument or domestic dispute. Applicant was charged with 1) simple assault/battery and 2) refusal/relinquish of phones. Both charges were dropped.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant did not note the 2002 incident in his May 2005 security clearance application. When asked to up-date his work experience on his application in January 2006, he did not up-date facts to denote dropped charged arising from an October 2005 domestic dispute.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES