CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-03726.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 08-03726.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date6/23/2009
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 08-03726) →See the appeal decision (Case 08-03726.a1) →
Participants
Judge: Charles D. Ablard
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant's personal conduct, specifically a series of misdemeanor thefts, raised security concerns. However, the applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation and took full responsibility for his actions, leading to a favorable decision regarding his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-03726.h1

grantedJun 23, 2009· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 39-year-old engineer with a master's degree whose security clearance was reviewed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed a series of misdemeanor-level thefts from a bookstore between February and July 2006. Specifically, the applicant was arrested and charged with theft over $50 but less than $500 for shoplifting. He also admitted to stealing books from three stores within the same chain on approximately 10 different occasions from February to June 2006 without being caught.

Disqualifying conditions were raised under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 31(a), AG ¶ 31(c), AG ¶ 16(d), and AG ¶ 16(e). However, the judge applied mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32(a), AG ¶ 32(d), AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), and AG ¶ 17(e).

The clearance was GRANTED because the applicant fully disclosed his criminal conduct and expressed sincere remorse. He completed counseling and paid restitution, demonstrating rehabilitation. Furthermore, his positive employment record and character references supported his trustworthiness, leading the judge to find that his post-offense behavior mitigated the concerns raised by his past conduct.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant fully disclosed his criminal conduct and expressed sincere remorse.
He completed counseling and paid restitution, demonstrating rehabilitation.
The applicant's positive employment record and character references supported his trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAdmission of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedPattern of Dishonesty
AG ¶ 16(e)raisedConcealment of Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Unique Circumstances
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Counseling
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the Applicant meeting the criteria contained in the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 29, 2008
Answer filedNov 20, 2008
Hearing heldApr 20, 2009Applicant waived the 15-day notice requirement.
Decision dateJun 23, 2009

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Through Rehabilitation Efforts
Impact of Full Disclosure on Security Clearance Decisions
Consideration of Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Evaluations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's personal conduct, specifically a series of misdemeanor thefts, raised security concerns. However, the applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation and took full responsibility for his actions, leading to a favorable decision regarding his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant engaged in a series of misdemeanor-level thefts from February to July 2006 at a bookstore. Such thefts are rule violations and show a pattern of dishonesty.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Claimed Other

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the criminal conduct allegations. The applicant admitted to stealing books on multiple occasions but demonstrated successful rehabilitation and remorse, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with theft over $50 but less than $500 for shoplifting from a bookstore.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Credited No Subsequent Offenses
1.b	Applicant admitted that he stole books from three book stores from the same chain of book stores on approximately 10 different occasions from February 2006 to June 2006 without getting caught.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	Credited Acknowledgment and Remorse Credited No Subsequent Offenses

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.