Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 35-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guidelines B, F, and J due to past criminal conduct, financial issues, and foreign influence. He successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating rehabilitation from previous criminal behavior, resolving significant debts, and showing that his foreign connections do not pose a security risk. The judge granted the security clearance based on the applicant's improved financial stability and positive character references.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's Wife #3 is a German citizen as are her two children (3.a). He intends to get US citizenship for his son as well as for Wife #3 and his stepchild (3.b). Applicant's wife works for a German company that is not connected to the German government (3.c). He maintains a German bank account with a US bank and also has a car loan and credit card with that bank (3.d). When Applicant was 19 years old, he was arrested in February 1985 (3) in State #1 for Forgery in the 2nd Degree, a felony; after the charge was amended to Criminal Attempt, he pled guilty, was fined $100 and sentenced to six months in prison, suspended to two years of adult probation. (SOR 1.a.) (1.a). In January 1986 he was arrested for Theft by Unlawful Taking in State #1, pled guilty and was fined $200. (SOR 1.b.) (1.b). In March 1988 he rented a car and wrote a check to cover the costs of $143.70 which later bounced when Wife #1 withdrew money from their joint account; in March 1988 a criminal complaint was filed but was dismissed after he paid the amount owed for the rental car. (SOR 1.c.) (1.c). Applicant denies submitting a fraudulent claim for over $2,000 for a computer during his military transfer to an overseas assignment in July 1992 as he never owned that brand. (SOR 1.d.) (1.d).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions J1, F1, B1. The judge applied mitigating conditions J2, F2, B5. The decision turned on the following: The applicant's criminal conduct was not recent, with incidents occurring over ten years prior; He demonstrated successful rehabilitation through positive character references and good conduct since his past offenses; The applicant resolved significant debts totaling over $10,000, showing control over his finances; His foreign connections, including a German wife and her children, do not pose a security risk as they have no ties to the German government.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant's criminal conduct was not recent, with incidents occurring over ten years prior.
• He demonstrated successful rehabilitation through positive character references and good conduct since his past offenses.
• The applicant resolved significant debts totaling over $10,000, showing control over his finances.
• His foreign connections, including a German wife and her children, do not pose a security risk as they have no ties to the German government.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedApr 10, 2002
• Answer filedApr 30, 2002Notarized response to SOR.
• Hearing heldJun 19, 2002Hearing conducted with multiple witnesses.
• Decision dateAug 22, 2002

Cite For

• Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Time Elapsed and Rehabilitation
• Resolution of Financial Issues Under Guideline F as Evidence of Financial Responsibility
• Foreign Influence Concerns Mitigated by Lack of Ties to Foreign Government Under Guideline B.