KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: This 50-year-old systems engineer was court-martialed in1976, when he was 20, but went
on to receive an Honorable discharge after six years of meritorious service in the Air Force.  In 1982,
he was charged with battery, but the case was dismissed after he attended anger management classes.
In 1994, his unhappy wife filed a complaint for sexual battery, but no formal charges were ever filed.
In 2002, complaints from the same wife led to the filing of “Threaten Crime/Intimidate/Terrorize”
charges.  He was allowed to plead to misdemeanor Stalking charges.  Overall, the Government’s
evidence was outweighed by Applicant’s explanations and documentation.  Mitigation has been
established.  Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-17378.h1
DATE: 02/27/2007
DATE: February 27, 2007
In Re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17378
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
BARRY M. SAX
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jennifer Goldstein, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
This 50-year-old systems engineer was court-martialed in1976, when he was 20, but went
on to receive an Honorable discharge after six years of meritorious service in the Air Force.  In 1982,
he was charged with battery, but the case was dismissed after he attended anger management classes.
In 1994, his unhappy wife filed a complaint for sexual battery, but no formal charges were ever filed.
In 2002, complaints from the same wife led to the filing of “Threaten Crime/Intimidate/Terrorize”
charges.  He was allowed to plead to misdemeanor Stalking charges.  Overall, the Government’s
evidence was outweighed by Applicant’s explanations and documentation.  Mitigation has been
established.  Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 30, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, as amended, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant.  The SOR detailed reasons
why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding required under the Directive that it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.  The SOR recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and
determine whether a clearance should be granted, denied or revoked.
On September 28, 2006 DOHA received Applicant’s response to the allegations set forth in
the SOR, and elected to have a decision made by a DOHA Administrative Judge after a hearing.  The
case was assigned to me on October 27, 2006.  A Notice of Hearing was issued on December 7,
2006.  A hearing was conducted on January 2, 2007. At the hearing, the Government offered seven
(7) exhibits (Government’s Exhibits (GX) 1-7).  Applicant testified and offered four (4) exhibits
(Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A-D).  Applicant also timely submitted seven (7)) post hearing exhibits
(AX E1-E7).  The transcript (Tr) was received at DOHA on January 10, 2007.  
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 50-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  The SOR contains four (4)
allegations under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).  In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted
allegations 1.a and 1.b., and denied 1.c. and 1.d.  All admissions are incorporated herein as Findings
of Fact.  
After considering the totality of the evidence, I make the following additional FINDINGS
OF FACT as to the status of each SOR allegation.
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) 
1.a. - On or about September 17, 1976, Applicant was the subject of a Special Court Martial
for violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He was found guilty and
sentenced to a reduction in grade to Airman Basic, confined to hard labor for one month, and
forfeited $150 per month for six months.
3
1.b. - On or about August 1982, in State A, Applicant was charged with battery.  As a result
of this charge, he was required to attend anger management classes, after which the case was
dismissed.
1.c. - On or about January 30, 1994, a complaint for sexual battery was filed against
Applicant.  Formal charges were not filed.
1.d. - On or about October 21, 2002, in State A, Applicant was charged with Threaten
Crime/Intimidate/Terrorize.  In about December 2003, he was allowed to plead guilty to
Misdemeanor Stalking in about December 2003.  He was sentenced to 60- days in jail, placed on five
years probation, required to attend a violent offender treatment program, prohibited from any contact
with his ex-wife.  Applicant’s personal weapons, seized by the police on October 21, 2002, were
returned to him by court order on December 23, 2002, citing the lack of evidence that such a return
would “result in endangerment to [Applicant] or others” (AX E5).  
POLICIES
Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of nine generic factors relevant
the conduct, to include (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, to include knowing participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the
conduct; knowing participation; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5)
the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent
behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence (Directive, E.2.2.1., on
page 16 of Enclosure 2).  I have considered all nine factors, individually and collectively, in reaching
my overall conclusion.
The eligibility criteria established by Executive Order 10865 and DoD Directive 5220.6
identify personal characteristics and conduct that are reasonably related to the ultimate question of
whether it is “clearly consistent with the national interest” for an individual to hold a security
clearance.  An applicant’s admission of the information in specific allegations relieves the
Government of having to prove those allegations.  If specific allegations and/or information are
denied or  otherwise controverted by the applicant, the Government has the initial burden of proving
those controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons.  
If the Government meets its burden (either by the Applicant’s admissions or by other
evidence) and proves conduct that creates security concerns under the Directive, the burden of
persuasion then shifts to the Applicant to present  evidence in refutation, extenuation or mitigation
sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence of conduct that falls within specific criteria in
the Directive, it is nevertheless consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue
a security clearance for the Applicant.
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
Government based upon trust and confidence.  As required by DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended,
at E2.2.2., “any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with the
interests of national security will be resolved in favor of the nation’s security.”
4
CONCLUSIONS
Applicant is a 50-year-old system engineer for a defense contractor.   
1.a. - In 1975, at age 19, Applicant entered the Air Force and was granted a security clearance
(Tr at 23).  In 1976, he responded to pressure from his “trainer,” and agreed to a scheme to make
“some quick money,” by making purchases at a local military exchange and then reselling the
merchandise (including a stereo) for a profit to non-authorized individuals (Tr at 20-23).  Applicant
knew it “was illegal” (Tr at 21).  When he left the Air Force after six years, he was given an
Honorable Discharge and a Commendation Medal (Tr at 22).  Because of the youth and immaturity
of Applicant at the time and the passage of some 30 years without similar misconduct, I conclude
this matter is no longer of security significance.
1.b. - In 1982, he was married to a woman with whom he had a rocky relationship, including
arguments and some violence on both sides.  Applicant claims his wife attacked him with a butcher
knife and cast iron skillet and he responded by hitting her (Tr at 24). She had some bruises on her
body and he did not, so he was arrested.  He attended anger management classes, and the charges
were ultimately dismissed (Id.). 
1.c. - In 1994, Applicant and his wife attended a Super Bowl party at a friend’s house.  There
were some hard feelings between Applicant and his wife and another couple.  The next day,
Applicant learned the other woman had complained that Applicant had touched her breasts and filed
a criminal complaint (GX 3).  Applicant reported the charges to his company, which submitted an
Adverse Information Report (GX 7).  He denies any inappropriate contact with the woman (GX 3
and Tr at 25).  There is no record of any formal charges being filed. 
1.d. - On or about October 21, 2002, Applicant was charged with Threaten Crime/Intimidate/
Terrorize.  The record show this incident involves the woman to whom he was married from 1989
to 1997.  Applicant claims that beginning in 1992, after birth of their second child, A, his wife
suffered from post partum depression and showed a change in personality, including verbally and
physically abusing him (GX 2).  He further claims that in about 1997, his wife was arrested for biting
him and made statements he construed as being threatening.  In 2002, she complained that Applicant
had placed three bullets in her mailbox. (GX 2 at 2).  Applicant claims that his daughter A told him
what his wife had done (Ibid.), a claim his daughter corroborates (AX E7).  Applicant stated that he
was shown his daughter’s diary before trial and agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges to avoid any
emotional damage to her by asking her to testify against her mother (Id. at 4).  Applicant claims he
accepted the punishment imposed by the court to avoid having his daughter forced to testify that her
mother had lied.  Applicant remains on  probation until December 2008.  Considering the unusual
nature of the evidence, I have carefully considered Applicant’s testimony, the court documents, and
documents submitted by the daughter, which have been admitted into evidence (AX A, AX D, and
AX E7). 
Applicant has clearly had a sometimes troubled past, mostly  in the context of his relationship
with his wives.  As to the two most recent incidents, 2002 and 2004, both involve his second (now
ex) wife and must be considered in the context of the failure of the marriage and the fight over
custody of their child (then 13 and now about 16).  That charges were made is clear, but it is not so
5
clear that the incidents actually occurred as alleged by the ex-wife.  In this context, I conclude that
the documents from Applicant’s daughter are authentic, relevant and material.  These documents,
along with others and Applicant’s testimony, suggest that most of Applicant’s problems were
situational (occurring during bad marriages) and are not reflected in the bulk of his 50 -year life span.
In the last 25 years, Applicant’s legal problems have both involved his ex-wife.  In the 1994
incident, no formal charges were filed and Applicant’s explanations, in the context of his marital
problems, are not countered by any other substantive evidence. His explanations are found to be
credible enough to overcome the conclusions urged by the Government, i.e., that Applicant
committed a criminal act.
As to the 2002 matter, it is a fact that Applicant remains on probation until 2008.  However,
the bulk of the record, specifically (1) the circumstances of the alleged misconduct, (2) the lack of
other recent problems, and (3) the otherwise praiseworthy life he has documented, make a strong
case that Applicant can be relied upon to work with and protect classified information and material.
I note particularly his Air Force records (AX E2), and the letters and certificates of appreciation for
his long service in support of the national defense (AX E3, AX E4, and AX E6).  I have carefully
considered the recent letter from his now 16 year old daughter (AX E7), and conclude that it supports
his version of the events surrounding 2002 events and his decision to plead guilty to Misdemeanor
Stalking.
The Concern: A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's
judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.
Disqualifying Conditions: (1). Allegations or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of
whether the person was formally charged; and (2). A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.
Mitigating Conditions (MC): (1). Most of the criminal behavior was not recent; MC (2)
applies in part, in that the pressures leading up to the conduct are no longer present in that person's
life; (5) The factors leading to the violation(s) are not likely to recur; and (6). The overall record
indicates clear evidence of successful rehabilitation. 
In summary, considering Applicant under the whole person concept, the totality of the
evidence suggests that the problems shown by Applicant’s past conduct are not likely to recur and
that he can be relied upon to safeguard classified information and material.   
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings as required by Section 3, Paragraph 7 of Enclosure 1 of the Directive are
hereby rendered as follows:
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.a.           For the Applicant
                Subparagraph 1.b.               For the Applicant
            Subparagraph 1.c.           For the Applicant
6
           Subparagraph 1.d.            For the Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
BARRY M. SAX
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE