ISCR Case 01-03633.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-03633.h1

grantedAug 17, 2001· Hon. John R. Erck· hearing

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

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

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.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

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

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
2.a	Applicant's failure to list the arrest on his SF 86 (Security Clearance Application)	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Credited Explanation of Omission Credible

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant's failure to list the arrest on his SF 86 (Security Clearance Application)

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

Credited

Explanation of Omission Credible

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in March 1998 after his 14-year-old sister called the police when she became upset by his efforts to supervise her weekend activities. Although he remained in police custody for more than 24 hours, no charges were ever filed against him.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure	—
1.b	Applicant's failure to list the arrest on his SF 86 (Security Clearance Application) is mitigated by his exculpatory explanation of the circumstances of the arrest, and by the absence of evidence his arrest involved misconduct which impugns his judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested in March 1998 after his 14-year-old sister called the police when she became upset by his efforts to supervise her weekend activities. Although he remained in police custody for more than 24 hours, no charges were ever filed against him.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Arrested Not Charged

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure

—

1.b

Applicant's failure to list the arrest on his SF 86 (Security Clearance Application) is mitigated by his exculpatory explanation of the circumstances of the arrest, and by the absence of evidence his arrest involved misconduct which impugns his judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES