Summary
A 31-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple arrests for offenses such as DUI and assault, which raised questions about his judgment and reliability.
The denial was primarily based on the applicant's deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts regarding his criminal history on his security clearance application. This lack of candor undermined his credibility and trustworthiness, creating a vulnerability to exploitation.
Despite the presence of some mitigating conditions, the judge found that the applicant did not successfully demonstrate rehabilitation or that his past conduct was unlikely to recur. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had a history of multiple arrests, including DUI and assault, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.
- The applicant's lack of candor in reporting his criminal history on the SF 86 undermined his credibility and trustworthiness.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate successful rehabilitation or that his conduct was unlikely to recur.
Conditions Referenced
- J30appliedCriminal Conduct Creates Doubt About an Applicant’s Judgment, Reliability, and Trustworthiness.
- J31(a)raisedA Pattern of Minor Offenses That Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Judgment, Reliability, or Trustworthiness.
- J31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Individual Was Formally Charged, Prosecuted, or Convicted.
- E15appliedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations.
- E16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
- E16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas That Supports a Whole-person Assessment of Questionable Judgment.
- E16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation, Manipulation, or Duress.
- J32(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened That It Is Unlikely to Recur.The judge found ongoing concerns about the applicant's candor and truthfulness.
- J32(c)rejectedNo Reliable Evidence to Support That the Individual Committed the Offense.The applicant's admissions and the nature of the charges did not support this condition.
- E17(a)rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Omission, Concealment, or Falsification.The applicant's lack of credibility undermined any claims of good faith.
- E17(c)rejectedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, That It Is Unlikely to Recur.The judge found the applicant's conduct continued to cast doubt on his reliability.
Key Rule Quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 13, 2017
- Answer filedDec 8, 2017Response was unclear regarding hearing preference.
- Hearing heldSep 26, 2018Applicant opted for a decision based on the written record.
- Decision dateOct 2, 2018
Cite For
- Issues of Candor and Truthfulness in Security Clearance Applications
- Impact of Criminal History on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Adjudication Decisions