Summary
The Applicant, a 43-year-old defense contractor, sought to retain her Secret-level security clearance despite allegations of past criminal conduct and emotional disorders. The judge found that the Applicant successfully mitigated the concerns regarding her criminal history, including an accidental shooting incident and a child support contempt charge, and determined that her mental health issues did not impair her judgment or reliability. Consequently, the clearance was granted.
Under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Applicant was arrested for an incident involving the accidental shooting of her husband, but was never charged (1.a). The Applicant was arrested and charged with Inflicting Injury on a Minor, specifically her daughter, but the case was dismissed (1.b). The Applicant was found in criminal contempt for failure to pay child support, but has since paid the arrearage in full and was released from probation (1.c). The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has an emotional, mental and/or personality disorder (2.a).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions J1, I1. The judge applied mitigating conditions J6, I1, I2. The decision turned on the following: The Applicant's past criminal acts were mitigated by time, lack of evidence, and successful rehabilitation; The judge found no current mental health issues affecting the Applicant's ability to safeguard classified information; Adverse inferences were overcome by credible evidence and testimony supporting the Applicant's stability.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The Applicant's past criminal acts were mitigated by time, lack of evidence, and successful rehabilitation.
- The judge found no current mental health issues affecting the Applicant's ability to safeguard classified information.
- Adverse inferences were overcome by credible evidence and testimony supporting the Applicant's stability.
Conditions referenced
- J1raisedCriminal Conduct
- I1raisedEmotional, Mental and Personality Disorders
- J6appliedSuccessful Rehabilitation
- I1appliedNo Current Problem
- I2appliedRecent Opinion of Mental Health Professional
Key rule quoted
“The Judge is not bound to give full or decisive weight to testimony merely because it comes from expert witnesses.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedDec 9, 2002
- Answer filed—
- Hearing held—
- Decision dateJul 14, 2003On remand from the Appeal Board.
Cite for
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Evaluation of Emotional and Mental Health Issues Under Guideline I
- Consideration of Expert Testimony in Security Clearance Cases.