Summary
A 43-year-old plant protection officer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to past unethical behavior as a state correctional officer. An internal investigation found he disclosed confidential information, filed false reports, and engaged in inappropriate transactions with inmates. Specific allegations included intentionally disclosing confidential information to an inmate, refusing to participate in the administrative inquiry, and a Civil Rights Act complaint from an inmate alleging the applicant knew of pending harm against them.
The judge determined that the applicant's conduct raised serious concerns about his trustworthiness and reliability. Disqualifying conditions were noted, while several mitigating conditions were also applied.
Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant failed to provide evidence to dispute the findings of unethical conduct. The internal affairs investigation substantiated claims of disclosing confidential information and filing false reports, and his refusal to cooperate during the administrative inquiry further heightened concerns about his trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to provide evidence to dispute the findings of unethical conduct.
- The internal affairs investigation substantiated claims of disclosing confidential information and filing false reports.
- The applicant's refusal to cooperate during the administrative inquiry raised further concerns about his trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.4raisedPersonal Conduct or Concealment of Information That Increases Vulnerability to Coercion
- E2.A5.1.2.5raisedPattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
- E2.A5.1.3.1rejectedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or Not Pertinent
- E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident
- E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedPrompt, Good Faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification
- E2.A5.1.3.4rejectedOmission of Material Facts Caused by Improper Advice
- E2.A5.1.3.5rejectedRefusal to Cooperate Based on Legal Advice
Key Rule Quoted
“"The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJul 27, 2004
- Answer filedAug 17, 2004
- Hearing held—Applicant appeared pro se.
- Decision dateMar 21, 2005
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Past Unethical Conduct Under Guideline E
- Importance of Substantiated Evidence in Personal Conduct Cases
- Impact of Refusal to Cooperate During Administrative Inquiries on Security Clearance Decisions.