Summary
The applicant, a 48-year-old reliability engineer with a long history of employment in defense contracting, faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and K (Handling Protected Information) due to alleged disclosures of classified information and a prior denial of access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI). The judge found that the applicant's conduct did not demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness or reliability, ultimately granting his security clearance based on his credible testimony and the mitigating circumstances surrounding his past actions.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The SOR alleges that another Government agency reported that Applicant admitted removing classified information from his workplace for several years and admitted discussing classified information with a non-U.S. citizen and family members (1.a). It also alleges that, from approximately 1985 through 1997, he removed classified material from his workplace (1.b). It also alleges that in the mid-1980’s he discussed classified information with his mother, father, uncle, and a foreign diplomat (1.c). It further alleges that Applicant was denied SCI access by another agency in 1990 (1.d). Finally, it alleges that Applicant falsified his security clearance applications in 2004 and 2007 by intentionally failing to disclose that he was denied SCI access in 1990 (1.e). The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified his security clearance applications in 2004 and 2007 by intentionally failing to disclose that he was denied SCI access in 1990 (1.f).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(b), AG ¶ 17(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's admissions were corroborated by credible witness testimony regarding his honesty and integrity; The judge found the hearsay evidence regarding alleged misconduct to be unreliable and insufficient to establish disqualifying conditions; The applicant's reliance on the advice of his security manager regarding disclosure on security clearance applications was deemed a mitigating factor.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's admissions were corroborated by credible witness testimony regarding his honesty and integrity.
- The judge found the hearsay evidence regarding alleged misconduct to be unreliable and insufficient to establish disqualifying conditions.
- The applicant's reliance on the advice of his security manager regarding disclosure on security clearance applications was deemed a mitigating factor.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
- AG ¶ 17(b)appliedThe Refusal or Failure to Cooperate, Omission, or Concealment Was Caused or Significantly Contributed to by Improper or Inadequate Advice of Authorized Personnel or Legal Counsel Advising or Instructing the Individual Specifically Concerning the Security Clearance Process.
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual's Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment.
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 1, 2009
- Answer filedNov 13, 2009
- Hearing heldMar 31, 2010
- Decision dateJun 28, 2010
Cite For
- Credibility of Witness Testimony in Support of an Applicant's Character
- Mitigating Factors Related to Reliance on Security Advice
- Evaluation of Hearsay Evidence in Security Clearance Cases