ISCR Case 14-04053.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04053.h1

grantedJun 16, 2015· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old electronics technician III was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) related to past misconduct. The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including a 2012 incident where the applicant incurred a $2,500 personal phone bill using a company cell phone, which he subsequently paid. Earlier, in 2008, he was terminated from a defense contractor position for making a false statement regarding unauthorized alcohol possession at an overseas work site.

Further allegations included a 2005 discharge from the military under other than honorable conditions due to drug use, which stemmed from non-judicial punishment in 2004 for possessing half a gram of marijuana while holding a security clearance. This earlier drug-related misconduct resulted in a reduction in rank, a fine, restriction, and extra duty. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have made a false official statement by not disclosing the adverse circumstances of his departure from the defense contractor job related to the cell phone misuse.

The judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant's past misconduct occurred over ten years prior and was unlikely to recur. It was noted that no disciplinary action was taken for the 2012 workplace misconduct, supporting the applicant's claim of no deliberate false statement. The applicant also demonstrated stable and productive current circumstances, including positive work performance and personal stability.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's past misconduct occurred over ten years ago and was deemed unlikely to recur.
No disciplinary action was taken against the applicant for the alleged workplace misconduct in 2012, supporting his claim of no deliberate false statement.
The applicant demonstrated stable and productive current circumstances, including positive work performance and personal stability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling to Change the Behavior

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 1, 2014
Answer filedOct 27, 2014
Hearing heldMar 25, 2015
Decision dateJun 16, 2015

Cite For

Mitigation of Past Misconduct Under Guideline E Due to Time Elapsed and Lack of Recurrence
Consideration of Personal Circumstances and Current Stability in Security Clearance Decisions
Evaluation of Credibility and Reliability in the Context of Past Conduct and Current Behavior

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
1.a	In 2012, Applicant used a company cell phone for personal calls, amassing a $2,500 phone bill, which he paid.	For Applicant	Misuse of Employer Time or Resources	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.b	In 2008, he was terminated from his defense contractor job for giving a false statement about unauthorized possession of alcohol in quarters while assigned to an overseas work site.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	In 2005, he was discharged from the military under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for misconduct due to drug use.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	—	(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.d	The drug-related misconduct alleged in SOR 1.c was the basis for non-judicial punishment (NJP) in 2004, for which he was reduced in rank, fined one-half of his pay for two months, restricted for 30 days and assigned 30 days extra duty.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	—	(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.e	His drug-related misconduct in 2004 consisted of possession of one-half a gram of marijuana and occurred while he held a security clearance.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	—	(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—
1.f	Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he did not disclose that he left the defense contractor job referenced in SOR 1.a under adverse circumstances, specifically, his misuse of a company cell phone.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

In 2012, Applicant used a company cell phone for personal calls, amassing a $2,500 phone bill, which he paid.

For Applicant

Misuse of Employer Time or Resources

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

—

1.b

In 2008, he was terminated from his defense contractor job for giving a false statement about unauthorized possession of alcohol in quarters while assigned to an overseas work site.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

—

1.c

In 2005, he was discharged from the military under other than honorable (OTH) conditions for misconduct due to drug use.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Admitted

—

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.d

The drug-related misconduct alleged in SOR 1.c was the basis for non-judicial punishment (NJP) in 2004, for which he was reduced in rank, fined one-half of his pay for two months, restricted for 30 days and assigned 30 days extra duty.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Admitted

—

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.e

His drug-related misconduct in 2004 consisted of possession of one-half a gram of marijuana and occurred while he held a security clearance.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Admitted

—

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

1.f

Applicant deliberately made a false official statement when he did not disclose that he left the defense contractor job referenced in SOR 1.a under adverse circumstances, specifically, his misuse of a company cell phone.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

—

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES