ISCR Case 03-19831.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-19831.h1

grantedMar 28, 2006· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old machinist working for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite past issues under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The government raised concerns regarding multiple arrests and convictions between 1994 and 1996 for offenses including petty larceny, felony petit larceny, felony shoplifting, and passing worthless checks. Additionally, the applicant was questioned about a February 2001 arrest for grand larceny and alleged misstatements of arrest dates on his SF 86.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) were raised, specifically J DC 1 and J DC 2. However, the decision ultimately applied mitigating conditions J MC 1, J MC 6, and E MC 2.

The clearance was granted because the applicant provided clear evidence of rehabilitation, with his last criminal offense occurring over nine years prior to the decision. The omissions on his security clearance application were determined to be inadvertent errors rather than deliberate attempts to mislead. Significant personal events, including the death of his sister and the birth of his children, were cited as motivations for positive changes in his life.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant presented clear evidence of rehabilitation since his last criminal offense occurred over nine years ago.
Omissions in the security clearance application were found to be inadvertent errors, not deliberate attempts to mislead.
The applicant's personal circumstances, including the death of his sister and the birth of his children, motivated positive changes in his life.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J DC 1raisedCriminal Conduct - Allegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged.
J DC 2raisedCriminal Conduct - A Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.

Mitigating

J MC 1appliedCriminal Conduct - the Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent.
J MC 6appliedCriminal Conduct - There Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation.
E MC 2appliedPersonal Conduct - the Information Was Not Recent and the Applicant Has Demonstrated Rehabilitation.

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an Applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 26, 2004
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 14, 2005
Decision dateMar 28, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Evidence of Rehabilitation
Inadvertent Errors in Security Clearance Applications Not Constituting Intent to Deceive
Consideration of Personal Circumstances in Assessing Security Clearance Eligibility

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
2.a	The government questioned Applicant's trustworthiness by alleging he deliberately omitted from his SF 86 his February 2001 arrest for grand larceny, and that he deliberately misstated the dates of two of his arrests (SOR ¶ 2.a).	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The government questioned Applicant's trustworthiness by alleging he deliberately omitted from his SF 86 his February 2001 arrest for grand larceny, and that he deliberately misstated the dates of two of his arrests (SOR ¶ 2.a).

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of larceny in September 1996 (SOR ¶ 1.a).	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
1.b	The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of felony petit larceny in December 1995 (SOR ¶ 1.b).	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
1.c	The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of felony shoplifting in January 1995 (SOR ¶ 1.c).	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
1.d	The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of passing worthless checks in July 1994 (SOR ¶ 1.d).	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
1.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Withdrawn	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of larceny in September 1996 (SOR ¶ 1.a).

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

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

—

1.b

The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of felony petit larceny in December 1995 (SOR ¶ 1.b).

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

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

—

1.c

The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of felony shoplifting in January 1995 (SOR ¶ 1.c).

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

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

—

1.d

The government alleged Applicant was charged with and convicted of passing worthless checks in July 1994 (SOR ¶ 1.d).

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

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

—

1.e

specific text not stated in this decision

Withdrawn

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES