Summary
A 50-year-old functional analyst and retired U.S. Marine Corps gunnery sergeant was granted a security clearance after addressing concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The allegations stemmed from his failure to list multiple offenses on his April 25, 2014 security clearance application (SF-86). These included convictions for driving under the influence in 2005, driving while impaired in 2009, assault in 2010, and several instances of driving with a revoked or suspended license between 2006 and 2013.
The judge found that the applicant had successfully mitigated the security concerns. He provided credible evidence of rehabilitation, including ceasing alcohol consumption and taking responsibility for his past actions. His military service and commitment to being a role model for his daughter were also significant factors in the decision.
Furthermore, the applicant's past offenses were considered in the context of his PTSD and combat experiences, which contributed to his previous behavior. Ultimately, the applicant was granted eligibility for access to classified information.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated credible evidence of rehabilitation by ceasing alcohol consumption and taking responsibility for past conduct.
- The applicant's military service and commitment to being a role model for his daughter were significant factors in the decision.
- The applicant's past offenses were considered in the context of his PTSD and combat experiences, which contributed to his previous behavior.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant FactsThe applicant's omissions on the SF-86 were found to be inadvertent and not deliberate.
- AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse InformationThe applicant's pattern of offenses raised security concerns about his judgment and reliability.
- AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to ExploitationThe applicant's history of offenses raised concerns about his ability to safeguard classified information.
- AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor OffensesThe applicant's multiple offenses created doubt about his judgment and reliability.
- AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal ConductThe applicant's admissions and evidence supported the finding of criminal conduct.
- AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant promptly acknowledged his omissions during the background investigation.
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's past offenses were considered in light of the time elapsed and his current behavior.
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and CounselingThe applicant sought treatment for PTSD and has taken positive steps to change his behavior.
- AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce VulnerabilityThe applicant's cessation of alcohol use and focus on being a responsible father mitigated concerns.
- AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant has not had any similar missteps in the last four years.
Key Rule Quoted
“The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedApr 25, 2017
- Answer filedMay 2, 2017
- Hearing heldMay 8, 2018Hearing convened as scheduled.
- Decision dateJun 27, 2018
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E Due to Rehabilitation Efforts
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Based on Time Elapsed and Changed Behavior
- Consideration of PTSD and Combat Experience in Evaluating Conduct and Rehabilitation Efforts.