ISCR Case 14-02723.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02723.h1

grantedDec 18, 2014· Hon. Thomas M. Crean· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old nuclear engineering systems tester with prior military service was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several past issues, including termination from a nuclear power facility for policy violations, a 2012 reprimand for violating company safety policies, and a 2009 reprimand for excessive computer usage at work. Additionally, the applicant had two reckless driving convictions for excessive speeding, one in 2005 which resulted in a 30-day license suspension, and another in February 2012, for which he was still on probation and had violated parole.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline E were raised, specifically concerning a pattern of questionable judgment and a deliberate disregard for rules. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, noting that the conduct was not recent, was infrequent, and that the applicant had taken steps to resolve the underlying issues.

The judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant presented credible witness testimony supporting his reliability and trustworthiness. The incidents of misconduct were deemed infrequent and did not establish a pattern of poor judgment. Furthermore, the applicant's military background and current employment demonstrated his capability to safeguard classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant presented credible witness testimony supporting his reliability and trustworthiness.
The incidents of misconduct were infrequent and did not establish a pattern of poor judgment.
The applicant's military background and current employment demonstrated his capability to safeguard classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling to Change the Behavior
AG ¶ 17(f)appliedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or From a Source of Questionable Reliability

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 14, 2014
Answer filedJul 23, 2014
Hearing heldNov 17, 2014
Decision dateDec 18, 2014

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance of Witness Testimony in Establishing Trustworthiness
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	Applicant was terminated from his employment at a nuclear power facility for violating of company policy.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken (f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source	—
1.b	Applicant violated his parole for the driving offense listed at SOR 1.c.	For Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was convicted of reckless driving by excess speeding in February 2012, and that he was still on probation.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken (f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source	—
1.d	Applicant was reprimanded in 2012 for violating company safety policies at the nuclear power facility.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken (f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source	—
1.e	Applicant was reprimanded in 2009 for violating company policy at the nuclear power facility for excess computer usage at work.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant was convicted of reckless driving for excessive speeding in 2005 and his license was suspended for 30 days.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken (f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was terminated from his employment at a nuclear power facility for violating of company policy.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

(f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source

—

1.b

Applicant violated his parole for the driving offense listed at SOR 1.c.

For Applicant

Failure to Report Required Information

—

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant was convicted of reckless driving by excess speeding in February 2012, and that he was still on probation.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

(f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source

—

1.d

Applicant was reprimanded in 2012 for violating company safety policies at the nuclear power facility.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

(f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source

—

1.e

Applicant was reprimanded in 2009 for violating company policy at the nuclear power facility for excess computer usage at work.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

—

1.f

Applicant was convicted of reckless driving for excessive speeding in 2005 and his license was suspended for 30 days.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

(f) information was unsubstantiated or from a questionable source

—

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 ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION