CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-16523.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 01-16523.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date12/30/2002
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: John R. Erck
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant did not deliberately falsify her SF 86 when she answered 'no' to questions regarding employment termination and pending civil actions. The applicant credibly testified that she was unaware of her termination and the judgment against her at the time of completing the form. Therefore, the personal conduct concerns were resolved in favor of the applicant.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-16523.h1

grantedDec 30, 2002· Hon. John R. Erck· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old foreign-born employee of a DoD contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited a 4th-degree misdemeanor conviction and alleged deliberate falsification on her security clearance application, specifically regarding questions 20 and 40 of the SF 86.

The judge determined that the record evidence did not support a finding that the applicant deliberately falsified her SF 86. The applicant's misconduct was deemed an isolated incident that occurred four years prior to the decision.

Mitigating factors included clear evidence of successful rehabilitation, demonstrated by an excellent work record and positive testimonials from supervisors. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, concluding she was unaware of the civil judgment when completing the SF 86. Based on these findings, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's misconduct was an isolated incident that occurred four years prior to the decision.
There was clear evidence of successful rehabilitation, as demonstrated by her excellent work record and positive testimonials from supervisors.
The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, indicating she was unaware of the civil judgment when completing the SF 86.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedFalsification of Material Facts

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedCriminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.2appliedCriminal Behavior Was an Isolated Incident
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedClear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
E2.A5.1.3.1appliedInformation Was Unsubstantiated or Not Pertinent

Key Rule Quoted

“A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 1, 2002
Answer filedMay 31, 2002
Hearing heldSep 24, 2002
Decision dateDec 30, 2002

Cite For

Mitigation of Isolated Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Lack of Knowledge of Civil Judgment
Successful Rehabilitation and Positive Employment History as Mitigating Factors 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant did not deliberately falsify her SF 86 when she answered 'no' to questions regarding employment termination and pending civil actions. The applicant credibly testified that she was unaware of her termination and the judgment against her at the time of completing the form. Therefore, the personal conduct concerns were resolved in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's criminal conduct, specifically a conviction for unauthorized use of property, was an isolated incident that occurred four years prior and was mitigated by evidence of successful rehabilitation. The judge ruled in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, concluding that the applicant's conduct did not raise security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleges security concerns are raised by Applicant's conviction of a 4th degree misdemeanor offense.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	Documented No Subsequent Offenses Documented Rehabilitation Evidence Documented Passage of Time
1.b	The record evidence does not support a finding Applicant deliberately falsified her SF 86 when she answered "no" to questions 20 and 40.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.