ISCR Case 04-07070.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-07070.h1

grantedJun 29, 2006· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old assistant management administrator for a Department of Defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several past arrests, including shoplifting in June 1991 and January 1999, an October 1998 arrest for assault (charges later dismissed), and an October 1998 arrest for driving under the influence, to which she pled guilty and completed her sentence. Additionally, the applicant failed to list her October 4, 1998 assault arrest on her security clearance application.

The judge considered disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct but applied mitigating conditions. It was noted that the applicant had not been arrested since January 1999, indicating a substantial period of rehabilitation. Her criminal conduct was found to have occurred during a difficult time in her life, and she has since established a stable family and professional life.

Crucially, the judge found no evidence that the applicant deliberately omitted or concealed her past arrests on the security clearance application. Given the significant time elapsed since her last arrest and her demonstrated rehabilitation and stability, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant has not been arrested since January 1999, demonstrating a significant period of rehabilitation.
The applicant's criminal conduct occurred during a tumultuous period in her life, and she has since established a stable family and professional life.
The judge found no evidence of deliberate omission or concealment regarding her past arrests on the security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”
— Executive Order 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 5, 2005
Answer filedJun 15, 2005Applicant responded to SOR allegations.
Hearing heldMay 3, 2006
Decision dateJun 29, 2006

Cite For

Successful Rehabilitation After a History of Criminal Conduct
Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Due to Lack of Deliberate Falsification
The Importance of Considering the Whole Person Concept 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 failed to list her October 4, 1998 arrest for assault in response to question 21 on her security clearance application.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant failed to list her October 4, 1998 arrest for assault in response to question 21 on her security clearance application.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested for shoplifting at a military exchange in June 1991.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.b	In October 1998, Applicant was arrested and charged with assault, 1st degree, a felony, and assault, 2nd degree. The charges were later dismissed at the request of her husband.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.c	In October 1998, Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence. She pled guilty to the offense and served all the terms of her sentence.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.d	In January 1999, Applicant was arrested for shoplifting. She pled guilty to the offense and served between three to five days in jail.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested for shoplifting at a military exchange in June 1991.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.b

In October 1998, Applicant was arrested and charged with assault, 1st degree, a felony, and assault, 2nd degree. The charges were later dismissed at the request of her husband.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

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

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.c

In October 1998, Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence. She pled guilty to the offense and served all the terms of her sentence.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.d

In January 1999, Applicant was arrested for shoplifting. She pled guilty to the offense and served between three to five days in jail.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

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

APPEARANCES