ISCR Case 02-18483.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-18483.h1

grantedFeb 13, 2003· Hon. Claude R. Heiny II· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited a 1996 arrest for cocaine possession, petit larceny, and obstruction of justice, as well as a failure to disclose a 1990 petit larceny arrest on her SF-86 and during a DSS interview. These issues raised questions about her judgment, reliability, and potential criminal conduct.

However, the judge found sufficient evidence of rehabilitation. The Applicant successfully completed a drug education program, resulting in first offender status and the dismissal of the cocaine possession charge. Her explanations for the 1996 arrest were deemed credible, and her failure to disclose the 1990 arrest was not considered a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The judge also noted the Applicant's lifestyle changes and active church involvement as demonstrations of successful rehabilitation. Crucially, the judge found credible her testimony that she had never used illegal drugs. Based on these factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant successfully completed a drug education program and was granted first offender status, leading to the dismissal of the cocaine possession charge.
The judge found the Applicant's explanations regarding her 1996 arrest credible and determined that her failure to disclose the 1990 arrest was not a deliberate attempt to mislead.
The Applicant's lifestyle changes and active involvement in her church demonstrated successful rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily.
E2.A5.1.3.7appliedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal Activities Has Ceased.
E2.A5.1.3.7appliedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal Activities Has Ceased.
E2.A5.1.3.7appliedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal Activities Has Ceased.
E2.A5.1.3.7appliedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal Activities Has Ceased.
E2.A5.1.3.7appliedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal Activities Has Ceased.

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 28, 2002
Answer filedSep 23, 2002
Hearing heldDec 3, 2002
Decision dateFeb 13, 2003

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Successful Rehabilitation After Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Credibility Assessments in Security Clearance Determinations

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	The Applicant was arrested in 1996 for cocaine possession, petit larceny, and obstruction of justice.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—
1.b	The Applicant failed to disclose her drug use on a security clearance application (SF-86).	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—
1.c	The Applicant failed to disclose a 1990 petit larceny arrest.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—
1.d	The Applicant provided misleading information during her interview with the Defense Security Service (DSS).	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—
1.e	The Applicant's conduct raises concerns about her judgment and reliability.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant was arrested in 1996 for cocaine possession, petit larceny, and obstruction of justice.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

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

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

—

1.b

The Applicant failed to disclose her drug use on a security clearance application (SF-86).

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Admitted

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

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

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

—

1.c

The Applicant failed to disclose a 1990 petit larceny arrest.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

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

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

—

1.d

The Applicant provided misleading information during her interview with the Defense Security Service (DSS).

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

—

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

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

—

1.e

The Applicant's conduct raises concerns about her judgment and reliability.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

—

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

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Allegations or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(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 (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
2.b	A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(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 (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Allegations or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(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

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

2.b

A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(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

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

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