ISCR Case 05-11343.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-11343.h1

grantedJun 21, 2007· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 33-year-old sensor systems engineer who was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several misdemeanor charges, including a December 1999 DUI, a December 2000 show cause charge, a March 2001 open container citation, a November 2003 petit larceny charge, and two charges for driving on a suspended license in December 2003 and March 2005.

Disqualifying conditions were raised regarding criminal conduct, financial issues, and personal conduct. However, the judge found that the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. The applicant provided credible testimony and evidence of rehabilitation for past criminal conduct.

Additionally, the applicant resolved financial debts through payment plans and credit counseling. Omissions on the security clearance application were determined to be honest mistakes, not intentional misrepresentations. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated credible testimony and evidence of rehabilitation regarding past criminal conduct.
The applicant successfully addressed and resolved financial debts through payment plans and credit counseling.
The applicant's omissions on the security clearance application were deemed honest mistakes rather than intentional misrepresentations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct
F1raisedFinancial Considerations
E1raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

J2appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant's criminal behavior occurred a significant time ago and does not cast doubt on his reliability.
F2appliedFinancial Considerations Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant's financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, and he has taken responsible actions to resolve them.
E2appliedPersonal Conduct Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant's omissions were found to be honest mistakes, not indicative of a lack of candor.

Key Rule Quoted

“Security clearances are granted only when 'it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.'”
— Executive Orders 10865 § 2 and 12968 § 3.1(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 11, 2006
Answer filedNov 3, 2006
Hearing heldJan 22, 2007
Decision dateJun 21, 2007

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Time Elapsed and Evidence of Rehabilitation
Successful Resolution of Financial Issues Through Credit Counseling and Payment Plans Under Guideline F
Honest Mistakes in Disclosure on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E

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
3.a–3.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a–3.b

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a–2.o	15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a–2.o

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In December 1999, Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), a misdemeanor under applicable state law.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited Passage of Time
1.b	In December 2000, Applicant was charged with show cause, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	In March 2001, Applicant was cited for open container in a vehicle after the driver of the company-rented mini van was pulled over and charged with DUI.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	In November 2003, Applicant was charged with petit larceny, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.e	In December 2003, Applicant was charged with driving on suspended license, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited Passage of Time
1.f	In March 2005, Applicant was charged with driving on suspended license, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In December 1999, Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), a misdemeanor under applicable state law.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

Passage of Time

1.b

In December 2000, Applicant was charged with show cause, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

1.c

In March 2001, Applicant was cited for open container in a vehicle after the driver of the company-rented mini van was pulled over and charged with DUI.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.d

In November 2003, Applicant was charged with petit larceny, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

Credited

Acknowledgment and Remorse

1.e

In December 2003, Applicant was charged with driving on suspended license, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

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

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

Passage of Time

1.f

In March 2005, Applicant was charged with driving on suspended license, a misdemeanor under applicable state law.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES