ISCR Case 02-15302.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-15302.h1

grantedDec 11, 2003· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old software test specialist for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had accumulated 21 traffic-related citations between 1984 and March 2000, including equipment and moving violations, failure to carry a driver's license or proof of insurance, prohibited parking, and lack of security verification or valid inspection stickers. While some citations for missing documentation were dismissed upon producing proof within 48 hours, the overall history raised questions about trustworthiness and reliability.

However, the applicant demonstrated significant mitigation. He had incurred no additional traffic citations since March 2000, indicating improved driving habits and a renewed commitment to compliance. He attributed past offenses to bad timing and not carrying necessary documents, and stated he had learned to be more cautious and attentive.

Furthermore, the applicant was credited with meritorious contributions to his employer and community, including serving as a certified basketball official. His company FSO, who had known him for 14 years, attested to his rule-consciousness at work and trustworthiness with classified information. Performance evaluations indicated he fully met employment objectives. The judge concluded that the applicant's demonstrated rehabilitation and positive contributions sufficiently mitigated the security concerns, leading to the clearance being granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a commitment to improved driving habits after a history of traffic violations.
He provided evidence of positive contributions to his employer and community, reflecting good judgment and reliability.
The applicant had no additional traffic citations since March 2000, indicating rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations.

Mitigating

MC 1appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and the Applicant Has Demonstrated a Change in Behavior.
MC 2appliedThe Applicant Has Shown Evidence of Rehabilitation or Improved Judgment.

Key Rule Quoted

“The ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility for a security clearance depends, in large part, on the relevance and materiality of that evidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 21, 2003
Answer filedJun 16, 2003
Hearing heldSep 24, 2003
Decision dateDec 11, 2003

Cite For

Mitigation of Security Concerns Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Demonstration of Rehabilitation After a History of Rule Violations
Consideration of Community Contributions in Security Clearance Decisions

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
1.a	Applicant has accumulated 21 traffic-related citations between 1984 and March 2000, for offenses ranging from equipment violations, moving violations, failure to have a driver's license in his possession, prohibited parking, lack of security verification, to failure to display a valid state inspection sticker.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant attributes his numerous assorted offenses to bad timing and failure to carry his driver's license and proof of auto insurance with him when he was stopped by police.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.c	In those instances in which he was cited for failure to show proof of a license or insurance, he consistently produced documentation of each within 48 hours of his citation, resulting in dismissals of those citations.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant has incurred no additional traffic citations since his last citation in March 2000.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.e	Applicant has learned to be more cautious about his driving and more attentive about keeping copies of his license and insurance with him at all times when he drives.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.f	Applicant is credited with meritorious contributions to both his employer and his community.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.g	Applicant's performance evaluations covering the past year indicate he fully meets his employment objectives.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.h	Applicant has been awarded a good defensive driving certificate in 1978.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.i	Applicant has served as a certified basketball official in his community.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.j	Applicant's company FSO has known him for 14 years and credits him with being very rule conscious at work and trustworthy in protecting classified information.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.k	Applicant has a history of traffic-related citations that could indicate untrustworthiness or unreliability.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	Claimed Other
1.l	Applicant's collection of amassed citations over an extended time period have security significance.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	Claimed Other
1.m	The positive way Applicant has acquitted himself at work and in his community reflects very favorably on his judgment and reliability and warrants considerable credit in mitigation.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.n	Applicant has been successful in developing and improving himself professionally with his company.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.o	Applicant has made significant military and community contributions in recent years.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.p	Applicant's professional and personal development are marked by over three years of trouble-free behavior.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.q	Applicant's demonstrated successes in his professional and community pursuits warrant a favorable conclusion regarding his security clearance.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.r	Applicant's renewed commitments to complying with the driving laws of his jurisdiction mitigate the adverse security implications derived from his numerous traffic-related incidents.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.s	Applicant's overall behavior and contributions to his community and workplace reflect positively on his character and reliability.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.t	Applicant's past record of traffic-related citations does not reflect his current reliability and trustworthiness.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.u	The applicant's overall conduct and contributions warrant a favorable decision regarding his security clearance.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has accumulated 21 traffic-related citations between 1984 and March 2000, for offenses ranging from equipment violations, moving violations, failure to have a driver's license in his possession, prohibited parking, lack of security verification, to failure to display a valid state inspection sticker.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

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

Claimed

Other

1.b

Applicant attributes his numerous assorted offenses to bad timing and failure to carry his driver's license and proof of auto insurance with him when he was stopped by police.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.c

In those instances in which he was cited for failure to show proof of a license or insurance, he consistently produced documentation of each within 48 hours of his citation, resulting in dismissals of those citations.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.d

Applicant has incurred no additional traffic citations since his last citation in March 2000.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.e

Applicant has learned to be more cautious about his driving and more attentive about keeping copies of his license and insurance with him at all times when he drives.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.f

Applicant is credited with meritorious contributions to both his employer and his community.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.g

Applicant's performance evaluations covering the past year indicate he fully meets his employment objectives.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.h

Applicant has been awarded a good defensive driving certificate in 1978.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.i

Applicant has served as a certified basketball official in his community.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.j

Applicant's company FSO has known him for 14 years and credits him with being very rule conscious at work and trustworthy in protecting classified information.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.k

Applicant has a history of traffic-related citations that could indicate untrustworthiness or unreliability.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

Claimed

Other

1.l

Applicant's collection of amassed citations over an extended time period have security significance.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

Claimed

Other

1.m

The positive way Applicant has acquitted himself at work and in his community reflects very favorably on his judgment and reliability and warrants considerable credit in mitigation.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.n

Applicant has been successful in developing and improving himself professionally with his company.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.o

Applicant has made significant military and community contributions in recent years.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.p

Applicant's professional and personal development are marked by over three years of trouble-free behavior.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.q

Applicant's demonstrated successes in his professional and community pursuits warrant a favorable conclusion regarding his security clearance.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.r

Applicant's renewed commitments to complying with the driving laws of his jurisdiction mitigate the adverse security implications derived from his numerous traffic-related incidents.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.s

Applicant's overall behavior and contributions to his community and workplace reflect positively on his character and reliability.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.t

Applicant's past record of traffic-related citations does not reflect his current reliability and trustworthiness.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.u

The applicant's overall conduct and contributions warrant a favorable decision regarding his security clearance.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

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