ISCR Case 04-06709.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-06709.h1

deniedAug 29, 2007· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 59-year-old truck driver was denied a security clearance under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to multiple felony convictions from 1971. The applicant was convicted of three counts of forgery in state court in January 1971, receiving sentences of one year and one day, two years, and five years incarceration. In the same month, he was convicted in federal court for transporting and receiving stolen goods, resulting in a three-year sentence.

Further convictions in 1971 included forging and uttering a U.S. Treasury check in March, leading to a three-year sentence, and mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud in May, which resulted in a two-year sentence. The applicant attributed these non-violent offenses to youthful indiscretion, stating they involved small amounts of money used for his support and transportation as a young man.

Despite demonstrating rehabilitation and a lack of subsequent offenses, the statutory disqualification under 10 U.S.C. § 986 precluded mitigation of the security concerns raised by his past conduct. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was convicted of multiple offenses in state and federal courts in 1971, resulting in significant prison sentences.
The statutory disqualification imposed by 10 U.S.C. § 986 prevented the applicant from mitigating the security concerns related to his criminal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
DC 31(f)raisedConviction in a Federal or State Court, Including a Court-martial of a Crime, Sentenced to Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding One Year and Incarcerated as a Result of That Sentence for Not Less Than One Year

Mitigating

MC 32(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior . . . It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
MC 32(d)appliedThere Is Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation, Including but Not Limited to the Passage of Time Without Recurrence of Criminal Activity . . . (and) Good Employment Record

Key Rule Quoted

“The sole purpose of a security clearance decision 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 issuedAug 30, 2006
Answer filedSep 11, 2006Applicant requested a decision based on the written record without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateAug 29, 2007

Cite For

Statutory Disqualification Under 10 U.S.C. § 986
Impact of Multiple Felony Convictions on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Rehabilitation in Security Clearance Determinations

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was convicted of three counts of forgery in a state court on January 1971, and sentenced to one year and one day incarceration on one count, two years incarceration on the second count, and five years incarceration on the third count.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	He was convicted of transporting and receiving stolen goods in a federal court in January 1971, and sentenced to three years incarceration to be served in a state penitentiary.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	He was convicted of forging and uttering a U.S. Treasury check in March 1971, and sentenced to three years incarceration to be served in a state penitentiary.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d	Lastly, he was convicted of mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud in May 1971, and sentenced to two years incarceration to be served in a state penitentiary.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.e	Applicant attributes the entire series of criminal incidents to youthful indiscretion. His description of each event that resulted in a criminal conviction indicates they were non-violent offenses that involved relatively small amounts of money used to provide for his transportation and support while he bummed around several states while a young man.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.f	Although he would otherwise be able to mitigate the security concern created by his criminal conduct, he is prohibited from doing so because of the statutory disqualification imposed by 10 U.S.C. § 986.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was convicted of three counts of forgery in a state court on January 1971, and sentenced to one year and one day incarceration on one count, two years incarceration on the second count, and five years incarceration on the third count.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.b

He was convicted of transporting and receiving stolen goods in a federal court in January 1971, and sentenced to three years incarceration to be served in a state penitentiary.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.c

He was convicted of forging and uttering a U.S. Treasury check in March 1971, and sentenced to three years incarceration to be served in a state penitentiary.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.d

Lastly, he was convicted of mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud in May 1971, and sentenced to two years incarceration to be served in a state penitentiary.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.e

Applicant attributes the entire series of criminal incidents to youthful indiscretion. His description of each event that resulted in a criminal conviction indicates they were non-violent offenses that involved relatively small amounts of money used to provide for his transportation and support while he bummed around several states while a young man.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.f

Although he would otherwise be able to mitigate the security concern created by his criminal conduct, he is prohibited from doing so because of the statutory disqualification imposed by 10 U.S.C. § 986.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

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