Summary
A 53-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited several omissions on his security clearance application (SCA). Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose a former marriage and two adult children in the relevant sections of the SCA. He also did not report a 1981 arrest for marijuana trafficking when asked about drug-related offenses.
When questioned by a government investigator in September 2005 about the 1981 arrest, the applicant initially denied it before recalling and discussing the incident. He explained that he did not disclose his former wife because the marriage ended in 1978, and he mistakenly believed his current wife was unaware of his first marriage, leading him to mark the former spouse entry as "not applicable."
The judge determined that the omissions were due to forgetfulness and confusion rather than a deliberate intent to deceive. Key mitigating factors included the applicant's clean criminal record for the past 25 years, demonstrating rehabilitation, and his long history of employment with a security clearance without any adverse incidents. Based on these findings, the security clearance was granted.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's omissions were determined to be due to forgetfulness and confusion, not deliberate intent to deceive.
- The applicant has not committed any crimes in the past 25 years, demonstrating rehabilitation.
- The applicant's long history of employment with a security clearance and no adverse incidents supported his case.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.2appliedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident
- E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 24, 2006
- Answer filedMar 8, 2006Initial answer was incomplete.
- Hearing heldMay 18, 2006Applicant requested a continuance, which was denied.
- Decision dateSep 29, 2006
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Due to Forgetfulness
- Isolated Criminal Conduct with Evidence of Rehabilitation
- Credibility of Applicant's Explanations Regarding Omissions on Security Clearance Application