Summary
The applicant, a 45-year-old with advanced degrees and extensive work experience, faced security concerns under Guideline E due to alleged personal conduct issues related to credit card use and travel authorization. The judge found that the applicant credibly followed company policies and was not disciplined for his actions, ultimately granting his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant admitted SOR ¶ 1.a and denied the remaining allegations (1.a). Applicant denied that in June 2007, he asked a fellow employee to falsify a required international travel approval form (SOR ¶1.b) (1.b). SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.i alleged that on October 2, 2008, R issued Applicant a written warning for exhibiting a pattern of disregard for R’s policies and practices and removed him from a Supply Chain Management leadership role (1.c). The SOR also alleged that Applicant was untruthful in his response to interrogatories because he denied he was removed by R from a management role for any reason (1.d). Applicant denied he left R because he was confronted about misusing the company credit card (SOR ¶ 1.h) (1.h).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A1.a, E2.A1.b, E2.A1.c, E2.A1.d. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A2.a, E2.A2.b, E2.A2.c. The decision turned on the following: The applicant credibly followed the financial director's guidance regarding credit card use; There was no evidence of disciplinary action or suspension of credit card privileges during employment; The applicant's explanations for the alleged misconduct were deemed credible and consistent.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant credibly followed the financial director's guidance regarding credit card use.
- There was no evidence of disciplinary action or suspension of credit card privileges during employment.
- The applicant's explanations for the alleged misconduct were deemed credible and consistent.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A1.araisedDeliberate Omission of Material Facts From a Security Clearance Application
- E2.A1.braisedMisuse of a Company Credit Card
- E2.A1.craisedFailure to Comply with Rules and Regulations
- E2.A1.draisedDishonesty or Lack of Candor
- E2.A2.aappliedThe Individual Did Not Act with Intent to Deceive
- E2.A2.bappliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Mitigate the Conduct
- E2.A2.cappliedThe Individual Has Demonstrated Good Conduct and Reliability Since the Incident
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 15, 2012
- Answer filedNov 16, 2012
- Hearing heldFeb 8, 2013
- Decision dateMar 5, 2013
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
- Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Company Policies
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions