Summary
A 34-year-old team leader for a Department of Defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant omitted a material fact on his SF-86 by answering "no" to a question about pending criminal charges, and that he did not provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions J30, J31(a), J31(c), and E16(a).
The applicant's history included past criminal arrests, such as DUI and drug-related charges. However, the judge found that mitigating conditions J32(a), J32(d), and E15 applied.
The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors: the applicant had not engaged in any criminal activity for over seven years, demonstrating significant rehabilitation and maturity since his past conduct. Additionally, his employer provided favorable recommendations regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant has not been involved in any criminal activity for over seven years.
- The applicant demonstrated significant rehabilitation and maturity since his past conduct.
- The applicant's employer provided favorable recommendations regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- J30raisedCriminal Conduct Raises Doubt About a Person's Judgment, Reliability, and Trustworthiness.
- J31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.
- J31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted or Convicted.
- E16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts.
- J32(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened That It Is Unlikely to Recur.
- J32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation, Including the Passage of Time Without Recurrence of Criminal Activity.
- E15rejectedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations.The government did not establish intent to falsify information on the SF-86.
Key Rule Quoted
“The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 20, 2009
- Answer filedDec 10, 2009
- Hearing heldDec 17, 2010Applicant agreed to proceed with the hearing despite receiving notice less than 15 days prior.
- Decision dateMar 18, 2011
Cite For
- Successful Rehabilitation After a History of Criminal Conduct
- Consideration of Favorable Employment Evaluations in Security Clearance Decisions
- The Importance of Intent in Allegations of Falsification on Security Clearance Applications