Summary
The applicant, a 54-year-old Integrated Systems Technician with over 20 years of employment at a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F and Guideline J due to a past criminal incident involving an altercation while defending his wife. The judge found that the applicant's isolated incident, completed rehabilitation, and long history of good conduct outweighed the disqualifying factors, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he engaged in criminal conduct (1.a).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions 31(a), 31(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions 32(a), 32(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation by completing all sentencing requirements except for probation; The incident was isolated and occurred under unusual circumstances, making recurrence unlikely; The applicant has a long history of good conduct and has held a security clearance since 1990 without any violations.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation by completing all sentencing requirements except for probation.
- The incident was isolated and occurred under unusual circumstances, making recurrence unlikely.
- The applicant has a long history of good conduct and has held a security clearance since 1990 without any violations.
Conditions referenced
- 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Offenses
- 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted or Convicted
- 32(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
- 32(d)appliedThere Is Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation; Including but Not Limited to the Passage of Time Without Recurrence of Criminal Activity, Remorse or Restitution, Job Training or Higher Education, Good Employment Record, or Constructive Community Involvement
Key rule quoted
“The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJun 5, 2008
- Answer filedJun 28, 2008
- Hearing heldOct 8, 2008Applicant requested to keep the record open until October 22, 2008.
- Decision dateOct 30, 2008
Cite for
- Successful Rehabilitation Under Guideline J
- Whole Person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations
- Mitigating Circumstances Related to Isolated Criminal Conduct