ISCR Case 17-03586.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03586.h1

grantedSep 24, 2018· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old former deputy sheriff was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) stemming from a history of work-related misconduct. While employed by the sheriff’s office, the applicant received multiple reprimands and suspensions between 2009 and 2015 for failing to timely complete and transmit reports, violating professional responsibilities, substandard performance, and improperly collecting and storing evidence. These issues culminated in her resignation in lieu of termination in 2015.

The Statement of Reasons detailed several specific instances, including counseling in May 2009 for untimely reports, further instances of untimely reports in 2011 and 2012, and unpaid suspensions of 10, 20, and 30 hours in 2012, 2013, and 2013 respectively, for sustained violations of professional responsibilities and field reporting procedures. In January 2015, she received counseling for improper evidence handling, and in July 2015, an administrative final action for substandard performance, child abuse investigations, and reporting procedures.

Despite this history, the judge found that the applicant had mitigated the concerns. She acknowledged her past misconduct and took steps to improve through training and counseling. In her current role as a receptionist for a DOD contractor, she has demonstrated reliable and trustworthy behavior, exceeding expectations for over two years. The judge concluded that her previous issues were unlikely to recur due to her current job fit and positive work environment, leading to the granting of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant acknowledged her past misconduct and took steps to improve her performance through training and counseling.
The applicant has demonstrated reliable and trustworthy behavior in her current employment, exceeding expectations for over two years.
The judge found that the applicant's previous issues were unlikely to recur due to her current job fit and positive work environment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant had a pattern of rule violations during her employment as a deputy sheriff.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's past conduct occurred under unique circumstances and is unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment and Positive StepsThe applicant acknowledged her past behavior and took positive steps to improve her performance.

Key Rule Quoted

“The ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 2, 2017
Answer filedNov 13, 2017
Hearing heldJun 13, 2018
Decision dateSep 24, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance of Current Employment Performance in Security Clearance Decisions
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility

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
1.a	Applicant received counseling from the sheriff’s office in May 2009, for failing to complete and transmit her reports in a timely manner, a violation of the sheriff’s policy and procedures.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.b	SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d, also involved two instances in 2011, and an instance in early 2012, of Applicant’s failure to timely complete and transmit her reports, as required.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		—		—	—	—
1.e	Applicant received an administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for sustained violations of her professional responsibilities and field reporting procedures. She received a 10-hour unpaid suspension.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.f	In March 2013, Applicant received another administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for sustained violations of her professional responsibilities and substandard performance. Applicant was given a 20-hour unpaid suspension.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.g	In November 2013, Applicant received an administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for sustained violations of her professional responsibilities and field reporting procedures. She received a 30-hour unpaid suspension.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.h	Applicant received counseling from the sheriff’s office in January 2015, for improperly collecting and storing evidence, a violation of the sheriff’s policy and procedures.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.i	In July 2015, Applicant received an administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for substandard performance, child abuse investigations, general professional responsibilities, and field reporting procedures. Applicant stated that she submitted to a polygraph to show that she did a sexual battery investigation.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant received counseling from the sheriff’s office in May 2009, for failing to complete and transmit her reports in a timely manner, a violation of the sheriff’s policy and procedures.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.b

SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d, also involved two instances in 2011, and an instance in early 2012, of Applicant’s failure to timely complete and transmit her reports, as required.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.c–1.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

1.e

Applicant received an administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for sustained violations of her professional responsibilities and field reporting procedures. She received a 10-hour unpaid suspension.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.f

In March 2013, Applicant received another administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for sustained violations of her professional responsibilities and substandard performance. Applicant was given a 20-hour unpaid suspension.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.g

In November 2013, Applicant received an administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for sustained violations of her professional responsibilities and field reporting procedures. She received a 30-hour unpaid suspension.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.h

Applicant received counseling from the sheriff’s office in January 2015, for improperly collecting and storing evidence, a violation of the sheriff’s policy and procedures.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.i

In July 2015, Applicant received an administrative final action memorandum from the sheriff’s department for substandard performance, child abuse investigations, general professional responsibilities, and field reporting procedures. Applicant stated that she submitted to a polygraph to show that she did a sexual battery investigation.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION