Summary
A 43-year-old video teleconferencing engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant knowingly violated federal laws regarding child pornography, deliberately falsified an Electronic Personnel Security Questionnaire (EPSQ) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001, and intentionally omitted from his EPSQ that he resigned from the Department of Defense under unfavorable circumstances.
Disqualifying conditions were raised under all three guidelines. However, the judge applied several mitigating conditions. The applicant demonstrated significant rehabilitation through counseling and support groups. The misconduct was determined to be isolated and not recent, with no evidence of recurrence since 1996.
Crucially, the applicant's actions were not found to be intentional regarding the possession of child pornography. Based on these factors, the security clearance was granted.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated significant rehabilitation through counseling and support groups.
- The misconduct was isolated and not recent, with no evidence of recurrence since 1996.
- The applicant's actions were not found to be intentional regarding the possession of child pornography.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A13.1.2.4raisedIntroduction of Hardware, Software or Media Into Any Information Technology System Without Authorization
- E2.A5.1.3.2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily
- E2.A10.1.3.2appliedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident
- E2.A13.1.3.1appliedThe Misuse Was Not Recent or Significant
- E2.A13.1.3.4appliedThe Misuse Was an Isolated Event
Key Rule Quoted
“The government has established its case that Applicant's truthfulness is in question because of an answer he gave in his EPSQ.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 25, 2002
- Answer filedDec 1, 2002More specific Answer received on January 14, 2003.
- Hearing heldMay 21, 2003Hearing rescheduled from April 30, 2003.
- Decision dateJul 18, 2003
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E Due to Isolated Incidents
- Consideration of Rehabilitation Efforts in Security Clearance Cases
- Distinction Between Intentional and Unintentional Possession of Child Pornography in Criminal Conduct Cases