Summary
A 28-year-old electrical engineer was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). These concerns stemmed from a March 1998 arrest, which was not disclosed on his SF 86 security clearance application.
The arrest occurred after his 14-year-old sister called the police during a disagreement over her weekend activities. Although the applicant was held in police custody for over 24 hours, no charges were ever filed. The applicant provided a credible explanation for the incident, clarifying that it was a misunderstanding and that he believed the arrest was not relevant to disclose on his SF 86.
The decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The arrest was an isolated incident that happened more than three years before the hearing, and the absence of charges mitigated concerns about criminal conduct. The applicant's explanation for both the arrest and the non-disclosure on his SF 86 was found credible, leading to the conclusion that his conduct did not compromise his judgment or trustworthiness.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant's arrest was an isolated incident that occurred over three years prior to the hearing.
- No charges were ever filed against the applicant following the arrest, mitigating concerns about criminal conduct.
- The applicant provided a credible explanation for not listing the arrest on his SF 86, believing it was not relevant.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.2appliedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident
- E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThe Person Did Not Voluntarily Commit the Act And/or the Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur
- E2.A5.1.3.1appliedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or Not Pertinent to a Determination of Judgment, Trustworthiness, or Reliability
Key rule quoted
“A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedFeb 17, 2001
- Answer filedMar 5, 2001
- Hearing heldJul 19, 2001Hearing was convened after reassignment due to caseload considerations.
- Decision dateAug 17, 2001
Cite for
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Lack of Charges
- Credibility of Applicant's Explanation for Omission on SF 86
- Isolated Incidents Not Impacting Judgment or Trustworthiness Under Guideline E