ISCR Case 08-04592.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-04592.h1

grantedSep 9, 2009· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old former U.S. Army Special Forces Combat Medic sought to renew his security clearance, which was initially challenged under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited two primary allegations: an arrest on July 23, 2003, for a July 5, 2003, felony charge of Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer, which resulted in a guilty plea to misdemeanor disorderly conduct with no jail time. Additionally, the applicant was investigated by the U.S. Army for potentially receiving stolen goods, though insufficient evidence prevented prosecution.

Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 31(a) and AG ¶ 31(c) were raised. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 32(a) and AG ¶ 32(d). The decision highlighted that the applicant's criminal conduct was isolated and occurred during a period of significant personal stress.

Crucially, there was no evidence of further criminal conduct since the incident, and the applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation and remorse for his past actions. Based on these factors, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's criminal conduct was isolated and occurred under significant personal stress.
There was no evidence of further criminal conduct since the incident.
The applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation and remorse for his past actions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted or Convicted

Mitigating

AG ¶ 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 or Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual's Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
AG ¶ 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

“A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedUndated
Answer filedJan 2, 2009
Hearing heldJun 9, 2009
Decision dateSep 9, 2009

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline J for Isolated Incidents of Criminal Conduct
Consideration of Personal Stress Factors in Criminal Conduct Cases
Successful Rehabilitation and Its Impact on Security Clearance Decisions

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested on July 23, 2003, and charged with Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer, a felony, for his conduct on July 5, 2003. It further alleged Applicant eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, but served no jail time. (SOR ¶ 1.a)	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Diversion or Deferred	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	(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
1.b	The government also alleged under this guideline that Applicant was investigated by the U.S. Army for possibly having received stolen goods, but that there was insufficient information on which to prosecute Applicant for that crime. (SOR ¶ 1.b)	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested on July 23, 2003, and charged with Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer, a felony, for his conduct on July 5, 2003. It further alleged Applicant eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, but served no jail time. (SOR ¶ 1.a)

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Diversion or Deferred

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

(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

1.b

The government also alleged under this guideline that Applicant was investigated by the U.S. Army for possibly having received stolen goods, but that there was insufficient information on which to prosecute Applicant for that crime. (SOR ¶ 1.b)

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES