Summary
The applicant, a 49-year-old divorced woman with a background in textile science and business administration, faced security concerns under Guideline E due to past personal conduct, including multiple extramarital affairs and dishonesty during security clearance investigations. Despite these issues, the judge granted her security clearance, noting the significant time elapsed since the conduct, her full disclosure during the clearance process, and her exemplary work performance since then.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: While in the U.S. Air Force, Applicant engaged in several extra-marital affairs, including a 1993 relationship with a subordinate. She lied about the 1993 affair in a state divorce proceeding, and later lied about it throughout a security clearance investigation (1.a). In June 1994, in response to the following question, 'Are there any incidents in your background which might make you susceptible to blackmail or exploitation such as: extra-marital affairs, undetected theft, fraud, embezzlement, etc.?'; she disclosed neither the affairs with her subordinate and his wife, nor two of her affairs in the late 1980s (1.c). In October 1994, a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent interviewed Applicant. She again only disclosed one episode of adultery from the late 1980s, and denied the affair with the subordinate (1.d). Later that year, Applicant’s former commander under whom her paramour also had served discovered a disk containing romantic e-mails that the paramour had sent Applicant, which confirmed their illicit affair. Subsequently, she was tried by general court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the offenses of indecent acts, adultery, fraternization, and perjury (1.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 16(b), AG ¶ 16(e). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 16(d). The decision turned on the following: More than 12 years have passed since the applicant's misconduct, and it has not recurred; The applicant was forthcoming about her past conduct during the security clearance process and maintained a clearance without incident for eight years; The applicant's work performance is characterized as exemplary by her supervisors.
Why the applicant prevailed
- More than 12 years have passed since the applicant's misconduct, and it has not recurred.
- The applicant was forthcoming about her past conduct during the security clearance process and maintained a clearance without incident for eight years.
- The applicant's work performance is characterized as exemplary by her supervisors.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Vulnerability to Exploitation
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedSo Much Time Has Passed That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- AG ¶ 16(d)rejectedAcknowledged the Behavior and Obtained CounselingThe therapy attended did not specifically address the issues that compelled the misconduct.
Key rule quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedApr 17, 2008
- Answer filedMay 8, 2008
- Hearing heldAug 25, 2008
- Decision dateSep 30, 2008
Cite for
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E Due to the Passage of Time
- Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications
- Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions