ISCR Case 08-10351.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-10351.h1

grantedOct 19, 2010· Hon. Claude R. Heiny II· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old staff maintenance logistician, employed by a defense contractor since 2007, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations, including a September 1982 investigation for wrongful possession and use of marijuana and possession of a smoking device. Additionally, the applicant omitted information on security clearance questionnaires.

Specifically, on his October 2007 e-QIP, the applicant did not disclose being fired, terminated, or leaving a job under unfavorable circumstances, despite a prior employment period with the same contractor ending in February 2005. Furthermore, on a November 2003 Standard Form (SF) 86, he answered "No" to a question about drug or alcohol-related charges or convictions, failing to list the two drug incidents or a 1991 DUI/DWI arrest. These omissions raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16(a) and AG ¶ 16(b).

However, the judge applied mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17(a) and AG ¶ 17(c). The applicant provided credible explanations for the omissions, attributing them to the age of the incidents and confusion regarding the questions. An investigation into his conduct while employed overseas concluded without disciplinary action, and his last communication with his employer supported his claim of leaving under favorable circumstances, not for cause. Based on these factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant provided credible explanations for omissions on security clearance questionnaires, asserting he forgot past incidents due to their age and confusion over the questions.
The investigation into the applicant's conduct while employed overseas was closed without any disciplinary action taken against him.
The applicant's last communication with his employer indicated no termination for cause, supporting his claim of leaving under favorable circumstances.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and the Applicant Has Demonstrated a Change in Behavior
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Provided Credible Evidence to Mitigate the Concerns

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 5, 2009
Answer filedFeb 13, 2010
Hearing heldJul 1, 2010
Decision dateOct 19, 2010

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Credibility of Applicant's Explanations for Past Conduct
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in 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	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In September 1982, Applicant—then age 23—was investigated for the offenses of wrongful possession of marijuana, possessing contraband (a smoking device), and wrongful use of marijuana.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	When Applicant completed his October 2007 e-QIP, he listed his prior employment with the contractor ending in February 2005. He never indicated he had been fired, terminated from, left a job following allegations of misconduct, or left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	In November 2003, Applicant completed a security clearance application, Standard Form (SF) 86. Question 24 asked Applicant if he had ever been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs. He answered “No” to the question and did not list the two drug-related incidents or his 1991 DUI/DWI arrest.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Denied

—

1.b

In September 1982, Applicant—then age 23—was investigated for the offenses of wrongful possession of marijuana, possessing contraband (a smoking device), and wrongful use of marijuana.

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Denied

—

1.c

When Applicant completed his October 2007 e-QIP, he listed his prior employment with the contractor ending in February 2005. He never indicated he had been fired, terminated from, left a job following allegations of misconduct, or left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

1.d

In November 2003, Applicant completed a security clearance application, Standard Form (SF) 86. Question 24 asked Applicant if he had ever been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs. He answered “No” to the question and did not list the two drug-related incidents or his 1991 DUI/DWI arrest.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

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