Summary
A 53-year-old retired U.S. Army intelligence officer was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited two specific concerns: that in April 2011, the applicant intentionally manipulated his physiology during a Department of Defense (DoD) polygraph examination, and that on November 6, 2013, he deliberately provided false and misleading information during an interview with a DoD representative. These allegations raised Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(b).
However, the judge found the applicant's testimony credible. The applicant asserted he did not intentionally manipulate his physiology during the polygraph. He also expressed sincere remorse for the misleading information provided in the 2013 interview and promptly corrected his statements.
The decision to grant the clearance was further supported by the applicant's long history of honorable service and numerous character references, which attested to his reliability and trustworthiness. Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 17(a), AG ¶ 17(c), and AG ¶ 17(d) were applied, leading to the ultimate outcome of a granted security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated credible testimony regarding his actions during the polygraph examination, asserting he did not intentionally manipulate his physiology.
- He expressed sincere remorse for providing misleading information during the 2013 interview and made prompt efforts to correct his statements.
- The applicant's long history of honorable service and numerous character references supported his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading InformationThe applicant admitted to providing false and misleading information during the 2013 interview.
- AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant made efforts to correct his misleading statements during the interview.
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe incident occurred in 2013, and sufficient time has passed without further issues.
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Positive Steps TakenThe applicant acknowledged his lapse in judgment and demonstrated remorse.
Key rule quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedNov 5, 2016
- Answer filedJan 17, 2017
- Hearing heldMar 22, 2018
- Decision dateMay 25, 2018
Cite for
- Credibility Assessment in Polygraph Cases Under Guideline E
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Through Character Evidence
- Importance of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations