Summary
A 32-year-old materials engineer employed by a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited a February 2001 arrest for forgery of a government instrument related to a fake twenty-dollar bill, and the applicant's failure to disclose a police search of his apartment in 2001 during a sworn statement.
Additional allegations included having unprotected sensitive documents on his computer in August 2002, emailing a friend about automatic weapons, and providing a Viagra tablet to a friend without a prescription. The applicant also did not disclose the search of his apartment during a sworn statement.
The judge found that the applicant did not knowingly pass a forged bill, noting he remained at the bar for hours after the incident. The forgery arrest occurred over five years prior to the hearing, indicating no recent criminal behavior. The applicant's actions regarding sensitive documents and other personal conduct were deemed mistakes rather than indicators of poor judgment, and the mitigating factors outweighed the concerns. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant was not found to have knowingly passed a forged bill, as he remained at the bar for hours after the incident.
- The arrest for forgery occurred over five years prior to the hearing, indicating no recent criminal behavior.
- The applicant's actions regarding sensitive documents and personal conduct were deemed mistakes rather than indicators of poor judgment.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThe Person Did Not Voluntarily Commit the Act And/or the Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur
- E2.A10.1.3.3notedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Future Misconduct
Key Rule Quoted
“The presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 9, 2006
- Answer filedMar 3, 2006
- Hearing heldOct 20, 2006
- Decision dateJan 18, 2007
Cite For
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Lack of Intent
- Consideration of Personal Conduct as Isolated Incidents Rather Than a Pattern of Behavior
- The Impact of Time Elapsed Since the Conduct on Security Clearance Decisions