2014 Fall Security Clearance Decisions

Online Jobs

Applying for a security clearance is a stressful process, and even if you have every tip under the sun, you might still be fretting. It's important to know that most security clearance applications are cleared. But, there are applicants who do get rejected. Here are a few examples of security clearance applicants who didn't quite make it, who did, and the reasons why. Check out the full page here if you want to see a complete list for 2014.

Criminal Conduct; AlcoholCase Number: 14-01322.h1 9/11/2014 Applicant is a 33-year-old test-vehicle operator who has a history of four alcohol-related incidents resulting in his arrest during 2005 2011. He did not present sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate the criminal conduct and alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance is denied.

Criminal Conduct; Alcohol Consumption; Personal Conduct Case Number: 14-00764.h1 9/12/2014 In August 2013, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) – a misdemeanor. One month later, before appearing in court for trial, he completed his SF 86 and falsely denied that in the last seven years, he had been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against him, or arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official. He also falsely denied that he had ever been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs. In December 2013, he was found guilty. Applicant is 61 years old, and in those years, he has been involved in only this one incident. He has never had any other drug, alcohol, or criminal incidents or problems. Applicant denied intending to falsify his responses and explained that he had simply answered the questions at that time with the wrong mindset that he had not been convicted of any alcohol-related crime and had been assured by his attorney that the charges would be dropped. Upon reflection, Applicant now concedes that he made a mistake in his thinking, and he should have responded “yes” to the questions. Based on his reputation, Applicant’s actions appear to be aberrant behavior. There is substantial evidence of successful rehabilitation: Applicant has complied with his sentence; he has a good employment record; he has expressed genuine remorse; he has reformed his habits; he has assessed the circumstances that resulted in his arrest and conviction, and taken positive steps to avoid such circumstances in the future; and there has been no recurrence of criminal activity, excessive consumption of alcohol, or questionable personal conduct. His actions under the circumstances confronting him no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Clearance is granted.

Foreign InfluenceCase Number: 14-00021.h1 9/15/2014 Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his familial ties (in-laws and other distant contacts) to China. He has continuously resided in the United States for nearly 30 years. He attended and earned advanced academic degrees from U.S. schools. He has been gainfully employed as a federal contractor for over 20 years. He became a U.S. citizen in 1999 and shortly thereafter was granted a U.S. security clearance. Over the past 15 years, he has worked on classified U.S. projects and established a track record of stringently protecting the secrets entrusted to his care. Applicant established that he will resolve any potential conflict of interest arising from his familial ties to China in favor of the United States. Clearance is granted.

FinancialCase Number: 14-00396.h1 9/16/2014 Applicant’s statement of reasons (SOR) alleges 16 delinquent, collection, or charged-off accounts totaling $23,242. She failed to provide sufficient documentation of the cause of and progress to resolve her financial problems. Financial considerations concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Guideline HCase Number: 12-06707.a1 9/18/2014 Errors that Applicant identified in the Judge’s findings of fact were harmless. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge was unbiased. Applicant failed to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

Sexual Behavior; Criminal Conduct; Alcohol Consumption; Personal ConductCase Number: 14-00606.h1 9/30/2014 Applicant’s history of criminal conduct consists of four alleged incidents involving criminal charges, arrests, or convictions for a variety of actions, and an allegation of inappropriate sexual misconduct not involving police authorities. As to the sexual misconduct, there are no signed, written, or authenticated statements by anyone in authority at the employer attesting to the accuracy or reliability of the witnesses or their respective oral scenarios. There are merely unsigned printed Security Incident Reports. Based on those three documents, the project manager ordered Applicant’s immediate removal from the project. Applicant was not informed or confronted about the allegations by the project manager or anyone else associated with the employer. No further investigation was performed, either by the employer or by any investigative authority, and Applicant was never afforded the opportunity to address or dispute the allegations. When finally informed of the allegations, Applicant steadfastly denied them. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to test the reliability or trustworthiness of the documents submitted. After considering all of the conflicting evidence (Applicant was at work during some of the alleged incidents), I conclude that Applicant’s testimony and signed sworn statements are more reliable than the Security Incident Reports. As alleged in the SOR, there were three alcohol-related incidents that occurred in July 2006 (intoxication), November 2006 (simple assault and drunk and disorderly conduct), and October 2013 (DUI). Applicant has been sober since the last incident. In his SF 86, there were a series of questions about criminal incidents that may have taken place within the past seven years and other questions about criminal incidents that had ever occurred. Although Applicant had been involved in a number of such incidents, he answered “no” to all of those questions. His actions under the circumstances confronting him cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Clearance is denied.

Drugs; Personal ConductCase Number: 12-12003.h1 10/10/2014 Applicant used marijuana weekly in high school and college, stopped in 2004 when he began working for a defense contractor, and then used it four times between November 2009 and December 2011. He has not used marijuana since December 2011. On his October 2004 security clearance application, he disclosed only one use of marijuana in 2000. Security concerns raised by his drug use are mitigated, but security concerns raised by his falsification of his October 2004 security clearance application are not mitigated. Clearance is denied.

Show Full Article

Related Topics

Security Clearance