Summary
A 46-year-old senior principal systems engineer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from allegations of child sexual abuse involving his then 14-year-old daughter in July 2009. The applicant was charged with two felonies related to child sexual abuse of a minor, though these charges were later dismissed without prejudice.
Despite a favorable employment record and character references, the judge found the applicant's denial of culpability and his explanation of the incident not credible. The applicant claimed the incident was unintentional and occurred while he was asleep, but this explanation was rejected.
A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to complete court-mandated rehabilitation. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to rebut the security concerns, failing to meet the burden of persuasion for clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to rebut the security concerns stemming from the child sexual abuse incident.
- The judge found the applicant's explanation of the incident as unintentional and occurring while asleep not credible.
- The applicant's failure to complete court-mandated rehabilitation was considered a significant factor against him.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Prosecuted, or Convicted
- AG ¶ 31(e)raisedViolation of Parole or Probation, or Failure to Complete a Court-mandated Rehabilitation Program
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Person's Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe judge found the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's ongoing denial of culpability outweighed the time elapsed.
- AG ¶ 32(c)rejectedEvidence That the Person Did Not Commit the OffenseThe judge found the applicant's explanation not credible and accepted the daughter's account as persuasive.
- AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant's failure to complete the rehabilitation program was viewed negatively.
Key Rule Quoted
“no one has a 'right' to a security clearance”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedApr 7, 2016
- Answer filedMay 23, 2016
- Hearing heldSep 7, 2016
- Decision dateDec 1, 2016
Cite For
- Credibility of Applicant's Explanations Regarding Serious Criminal Conduct
- Impact of Failure to Complete Rehabilitation Programs on Security Clearance Decisions
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Adjudications