ISCR Case 01-00407.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-00407.h1

deniedMay 1, 2002· Hon. Barry M. Sax· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old defense contractor manager was denied a security clearance under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of two significant felony convictions. The first conviction, for forgery, occurred in 1972 and resulted in a two-year probation. The second, for felony theft, took place in 1989, leading to a five-year prison sentence and a $2,500 fine, though the sentence was suspended, and the applicant served five years of probation, which concluded in August 1994.

The judge determined that the 1989 felony theft conviction, which carried a sentence exceeding one year, triggered the statutory prohibition under 10 U.S.C. 986(C)(1), rendering the applicant ineligible for a security clearance. Disqualifying conditions DC 1 and DC 2 were raised, while mitigating conditions MC 1, MC 2, and MC 6 were considered.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant's explanations for his criminal behavior were deemed not credible, undermining any claims of rehabilitation. The judge concluded that the applicant's criminal history demonstrated a pattern of poor judgment and untrustworthiness, in addition to the specific statutory disqualification.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a felony conviction for theft resulting in a sentence of more than one year, triggering disqualification under 10 U.S.C. 986.
The applicant's explanations for his criminal conduct were found to be not credible, undermining any claims of rehabilitation or mitigation.
The judge concluded that the applicant's criminal history demonstrated a pattern of poor judgment and untrustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged.
DC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.

Mitigating

MC 1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent.
MC 2rejectedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident.The applicant's criminal conduct was not isolated, as there were multiple offenses.
MC 6rejectedThere Is Evidence of Rehabilitation.The evidence of rehabilitation was not deemed clear enough to mitigate the disqualifying conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“"any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with the interests of national security will be resolved in favor of the nation's security."”
— DoD Directive 5220.6

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 24, 2001
Answer filedOct 17, 2001
Hearing heldMar 12, 2002Hearing delayed due to applicant's counsel being called to active duty.
Decision dateMay 1, 2002

Cite For

Application of 10 U.S.C. 986 Regarding Felony Convictions
Credibility Assessments in Evaluating Mitigating Evidence
The Impact of a Criminal History on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J.

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 March 17, 1972 and charged with Burglary and Passing Credit Cards. He was convicted of the charge of Forgery and was sentenced to two years probation.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested and charged with felony theft on August 23, 1989. He entered a plea of guilty to the felony theft charge and was sentenced to a five-year prison term and $2,500.00 fine. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for two years, later extended to five years. Applicant completed his probation in August 1994.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	The Finding of Fact as to SOR 1.b., above, bring this matter within the specific prohibition of 10 USC 986(C)(1), which states that anyone convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than one year imprisonment is disqualified from obtaining or retaining a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested on March 17, 1972 and charged with Burglary and Passing Credit Cards. He was convicted of the charge of Forgery and was sentenced to two years probation.

Against Applicant

Trespassing or Burglary

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.b

Applicant was arrested and charged with felony theft on August 23, 1989. He entered a plea of guilty to the felony theft charge and was sentenced to a five-year prison term and $2,500.00 fine. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for two years, later extended to five years. Applicant completed his probation in August 1994.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.c

The Finding of Fact as to SOR 1.b., above, bring this matter within the specific prohibition of 10 USC 986(C)(1), which states that anyone convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than one year imprisonment is disqualified from obtaining or retaining a security clearance.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES