Summary
A security clearance was granted to an applicant, a former police officer born in April 1975, despite concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including making a false statement during an internal affairs investigation, insubordination, abuse of sick leave, failure to return a license plate, use of a privately-owned emergency light, and slapping a suspect. These issues culminated in an internal affairs investigation and his resignation from the police department.
The judge acknowledged the applicant's admission to the allegations and the presence of disqualifying conditions E2.a, E2.b, E3.a, E3.b, E3.c, and E3.d. However, the decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The applicant provided information that mitigated his past conduct, demonstrating remorse and taking responsibility for his actions.
Crucially, the applicant recognized the seriousness of his misconduct. His positive post-employment record and demonstrated trustworthiness in his current job further supported the decision, leading to the application of mitigating conditions E2.a, E2.b, and E3.a, and ultimately, the granting of his security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant admitted to the allegations but provided mitigating information regarding his conduct.
- He demonstrated remorse and took responsibility for his actions, recognizing the seriousness of his misconduct.
- The applicant's positive post-employment record and trustworthiness in his current job contributed to the decision.
Conditions referenced
- E2.araisedDeliberate Misrepresentation of Information
- E2.braisedFalsification of Records
- E3.araisedInsubordination
- E3.braisedAbuse of Sick Leave
- E3.craisedFailure to Follow Instructions
- E3.draisedMisuse of Authority
- E2.aappliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Taken Steps to Correct It
- E2.bappliedThe Individual Has Demonstrated a Positive Change in Behavior
- E3.aappliedThe Individual Has Shown Evidence of Rehabilitation and Good Conduct Since the Incidents
Key rule quoted
“A Judge is required to weigh conflicting evidence and to resolve such conflicts based upon a careful evaluation of factors such as the comparative reliability, plausibility and ultimate truthfulness of conflicting pieces of evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedFeb 10, 2006
- Answer filedMar 27, 2006
- Hearing heldMay 17, 2007Judge Graham presided.
- Decision dateMar 6, 2008Decision on remand.
Cite for
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Consideration of Post-employment Behavior in Security Clearance Decisions
- The Importance of Taking Responsibility for Past Misconduct in Security Clearance Evaluations.