CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-03897.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 08-03897.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/27/2009
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Charles D. Ablard
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant's failure to report a felony conviction on his e-QIP was not deliberate, as he was unaware of the felony status of his conviction. The applicant's conduct was mitigated by the passage of time and evidence of rehabilitation, 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. 08-03897.h1

grantedMar 27, 2009· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old heavy equipment operator for a government contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that in 1987, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for larceny of a motorcycle, resulting in a sentence of two years confinement, forfeiture of $1,000, and reduction in rank to airman basic.

Additionally, the SOR alleged that the applicant falsified material on his e-QIP by answering "no" to Question 23, which asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony offense, including one under the UCMJ. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 31(a) and 16(a) were raised.

However, the judge applied mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 32(a), 32(d), and 17(a). The applicant demonstrated rehabilitation through 22 years without further criminal incidents, and the significant time elapsed since the criminal conduct mitigated concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Furthermore, the applicant's testimony and evidence indicated a lack of intent to falsify his e-QIP. Based on these factors, the applicant was granted eligibility for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated rehabilitation through 22 years without further criminal incidents.
The time elapsed since the criminal conduct mitigated concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's testimony and evidence indicated a lack of intent to falsify his e-QIP.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31 (a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16 (a)raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32 (a)appliedCriminal ConductThe time elapsed since the criminal behavior does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability.
AG ¶ 32 (d)appliedCriminal ConductEvidence of successful rehabilitation includes a clean record for 22 years.
AG ¶ 17 (a)rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's omission was not found to be deliberate.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 3, 2008
Answer filedOct 25, 2008
Hearing heldFeb 19, 2009
Decision dateMar 27, 2009

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct After Significant Time Has Elapsed
Successful Rehabilitation Demonstrated by a Clean Record
Lack of Intent in Personal Conduct Allegations Due to Confusion Over Conviction Status

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 failure to report a felony conviction on his e-QIP was not deliberate, as he was unaware of the felony status of his conviction. The applicant's conduct was mitigated by the passage of time and evidence of rehabilitation, leading to a favorable decision regarding his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR also alleged that he falsified material on his e-QIP when he answered Question 23 in the negative as to whether he had ever been convicted of a felony offense including one under the UCMJ (SOR ¶ 2.a.).	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—

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 that the applicant mitigated security concerns regarding criminal conduct under Guideline J. The applicant's past conviction was considered, but the judge ruled in favor of the applicant based on the passage of time and evidence of rehabilitation, ultimately granting eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Government alleged that he was tried and convicted in 1987 by a general court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) larceny of a motorcycle, and sentenced to two years confinement, forfeiture of $1,000 and reduction in rank to airman basic (SOR ¶ 1.a.)	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	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 Passage of Time Credited Rehabilitation Evidence
2.a	The SOR also alleged that he falsified material on his e-QIP when he answered Question 23 in the negative as to whether he had ever been convicted of a felony offense including one under the UCMJ (SOR ¶ 2.a.)	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

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.