Summary
A defense contractor, born in September 1957, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited a 1998 battery conviction against his former wife, a temporary protective order, and a subsequent arrest for violating that order. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have committed and been arrested for assault on two separate occasions, and to have downloaded adult material on a company laptop.
Disqualifying conditions related to personal and criminal conduct were raised, including allegations of a pattern of criminal conduct, a history of dishonest conduct, and a failure to follow rules. However, the judge applied several mitigating conditions.
The clearance was granted because the criminal conduct was determined to be an isolated incident from many years prior. The judge also found that the ex-wife's credibility was undermined by her attempts to use criminal charges for financial leverage. Ultimately, the applicant demonstrated rehabilitation and stability in his personal life following his divorce, leading to the favorable decision.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's criminal conduct was an isolated incident occurring many years ago.
- The applicant's ex-wife's credibility was undermined due to her attempts to leverage criminal charges for financial gain.
- The applicant demonstrated rehabilitation and stability in his personal life post-divorce.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A5.1.2.1raisedReliable, Unfavorable Information Provided by Associates
- E2.A5.1.2.5raisedPattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.2appliedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident
- E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThe Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur
- E2.A5.1.3.1rejectedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or Not PertinentThe applicant's use of the company laptop for unauthorized purposes showed poor judgment.
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.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 13, 2006
- Answer filedMar 22, 2006
- Hearing heldJun 12, 2006Hearing was convened with the concurrence of both parties.
- Decision dateJul 12, 2006
Cite For
- Mitigation of Security Concerns Due to Isolated Incidents Under Guideline J
- Credibility Issues Arising From Attempts to Leverage Criminal Charges in Divorce Proceedings
- Application of the Whole Person Concept in Evaluating Personal Conduct