Summary
A 44-year-old field engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several past incidents and omissions on his security clearance application. These included failing to disclose a misdemeanor drug possession conviction, a 1993 DUI arrest, and a felony arrest for endangering children that was later reduced to a misdemeanor. Additionally, the applicant was involved in domestic violence incidents in 1990 and 1992, and was court-martialed in 1980 for drug-related offenses.
The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He provided clear evidence of successful rehabilitation, marked by a stable employment record and family life. He also demonstrated that he had no intent to falsify his security clearance application, having relied on legal advice regarding disclosure requirements.
Crucially, the applicant's criminal conduct was not recent, with no arrests occurring in over five years. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant established clear evidence of successful rehabilitation with a stable employment record and family life.
- He demonstrated no intent to falsify his security clearance application, relying on legal advice regarding disclosure requirements.
- The applicant's criminal conduct was not recent, and he has not had any arrests for over five years.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThe Person Did Not Voluntarily Commit the Act And/or the Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur
- E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
- E2.A5.1.3.5appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Significantly Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress
- E2.A5.1.3.6appliedRefusal to Cooperate Is Based on Advice From Legal Counsel
Key rule quoted
“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedMay 7, 2004
- Answer filedJun 7, 2004Notarized response to SOR.
- Hearing heldJan 25, 2005Hearing conducted at a location convenient to the applicant.
- Decision dateJun 8, 2005
Cite for
- Successful Rehabilitation in the Context of Criminal Conduct
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Based on Reliance on Legal Advice
- No Intent to Falsify Information on Security Clearance Applications Due to Misunderstanding of Disclosure Requirements.