KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant’s six arrests between 1979 and 2004 raise a security concern. He has only been
arrested once in the past 18 years. Given the positive changes in his life that have occurred during
that time, the isolation of the most recent arrest, and its surrounding circumstances, I conclude it
represents an anomaly rather than a continuing pattern of criminal conduct. Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 05-16819.h1
DATE: 03/30/2007
DATE: March 30, 2007
In re:
-------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-16819
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s six arrests between 1979 and 2004 raise a security concern. He has only been
arrested once in the past 18 years. Given the positive changes in his life that have occurred during
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2,1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
Tr. 47.2
See generally, Exhibits F through Q.3
Tr. 63.4
2
that time, the isolation of the most recent arrest, and its surrounding circumstances, I conclude it
represents an anomaly rather than a continuing pattern of criminal conduct. Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 30, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  Applicant answered it on October 25,1
2006, and requested a hearing. 
The case was assigned to me on February 6, 2007. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on
February 27, 2007, scheduling it for March 13, 2007. The hearing was held as scheduled. During the
hearing, I received eight government exhibits, five Applicant exhibits, and the testimony of two
Applicant witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, I left the record open through March 27, 2007
for Applicant to submit additional exhibits. That day, he submitted 12 additional exhibits.
Department Counsel did not object to their admissibility. I then marked them as Applicant’s Exhibits
F through Q, and incorporated them into the record. DOHA received the transcript on March 23,
2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
Applicant’s admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. In addition, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 48-year-old married man. He has been married twice in the past, and has one
child from a prior marriage, age 26. He earned a GED in 2001. For the past three years, he has
worked as a maintenance supervisor tasked with troubleshooting equipment for his employer.  He2
is well-respected in his community.3
In 1979, Applicant’s then wife caught him with his paramour at a New Year’s Eve party.  She4
confronted the paramour, and a fight ensued. As Applicant attempted to separate them, they both fell
to the ground. That night, the paramour contacted the police and filed assault charges against
Exhibit 3, Complaint and Summons, dated December 31, 1979.5
Exhibit 4, Complaint and Summons, dated January 12, 1980.6
See Note 5.7
See Note 6.8
Answer, dated October 25, 2006, at 6. 9
Tr. 52.10
Tr. 52.11
Tr. 80.12
Tr. 53.13
By then, Applicant had divorced his first wife.14
Exhibit C, State v. Applicant, Journal Entry dated June 21, 1988.15
3
Applicant, alleging that he shoved her to the ground.  Two weeks later, Applicant’s wife filed assault5
charges against him arising from the same incident.6
The paramour’s charge was dismissed after she later told the police that Applicant was
attempting to protect her during the fracas.  Later, the wife’s assault charge was dismissed after she7
told the police that her parents pressured her to file it.  8
In 1982, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DUI). He
pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to six months incarceration (suspended), one year probation,
and fined $500. Also, his driver’s license was suspended for six months.9
In 1985, after pulling a knife on an assailant during a barroom brawl, Applicant was arrested
and charged with felonious assault and carrying a concealed weapon.  In exchange for his guilty plea10
on the felonious assault charge, the prosecution dropped the concealed weapon charge. He was
sentenced to five to ten years imprisonment (suspended), ordered to serve 90 days in the local jail
on a work release program, and placed on three years probation. He was released from jail after
serving approximately 45 days of the sentence.11
Applicant attributes his legal problems in his youth to a problem with alcohol consumption.
After serving the 1985 sentence, he voluntarily entered Alcoholic’s Anonymous (AA). Currently,
he continues to attend AA periodically.  He has not drunk any alcoholic beverages in 23 years.12 13
In 1988, Applicant was arrested and charged with domestic violence after throwing a wrench
at his girlfriend’s car window during a heated argument.  Later, the charge was dismissed after his14
girlfriend filed a statement acknowledging that she “was as much at fault” as Applicant.15
Exhibit M, Statement of Wife, dated March 26, 2007.16
Id. at 1.17
Id.18
Tr. 33-Wife’s testimony.19
Exhibit A, Statement of Wife, dated October 25, 2006, at 2.20
Id; Tr. 37-Wife’s Testimony.21
Id.22
Tr. 35 - Wife’s testimony.23
Exhibit 8, Warrant of Arrest and Disposition, dated December 15, 2004, at 1.24
Id. at 2.25
Exhibit Q, Anger Management Class Online Receipt, dated March 26, 2007.26
4
In 1999, Applicant began dating his current wife.  They married in 2002. Although they16
sometimes “agree to disagree” like most married couples, they are generally happy.  He has always17
treated her respectfully, and has never “laid his hands on [her] in anger.”18
In October 2004, Applicant’s wife grew seriously ill, and underwent gall bladder surgery.
After her discharge from the hospital, her sister moved into their home to help her convalesce.
One evening, a few days after the surgery, while Applicant was at work, his wife began
experiencing post-surgery complications that required emergency hospitalization. By the time
Applicant returned from work the next morning, she had been discharged from the hospital. Because
neither she nor her sister contacted him at work to tell him of the hospitalization, he grew “a little
aggravated.”  His wife then apologized, and they “moved on to other topics” of discussion.19 20
Applicant’s sister-in-law then interjected herself into their conversation, steering it back to
the issue of the hospitalization.  Although his wife admonished her to calm down, she grew loud21
and overbearing.  In response, Applicant and his wife told her to leave their home. He then set her22
luggage on the front porch. When he re-entered the house, she slapped him, whereupon he physically
escorted her to the front door. In the course of removing her from the home, she fell to the ground.23
After Applicant’s sister-in-law reported the incident to the police, he was arrested and
charged on October 11, 2004, with misdemeanor assault and battery.   Two months later, he pleaded24
no contest and was sentenced to six months in jail (suspended), and twelve months of unsupervised
probation.  Also, he was ordered not to have any contact with his sister-in-law during the probation.25
Applicant complied with the terms of probation. He has not been arrested or charged with
any crimes since that time, and continues not to have any contact with his sister-in-law. On March
26, 2007, he voluntarily enrolled in an eight-hour anger management class.26
POLICIES
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.27
5
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in
the evaluation of security suitability. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline,
the adjudicative guidelines are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny
or revoke an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions)
and those that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access
to classified information (mitigating conditions).
Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. Specifically these are: (1) the
nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency
of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to
which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the
consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the
circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.
The following adjudicative guideline is raised:
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct: A history or pattern of criminal activity creates
doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions pertaining to this adjudicative guideline that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
consistent with the national interest.”   In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those27
conclusions that are based on the evidence contained in the record.
The Government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that
have been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,
extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the Government, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Criminal Conduct
6
Applicant was arrested and charged six times with criminal conduct between 1979 and 2004.
Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) E2.A10.1.2.1 (Allegations or admission of
criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged), and CC DC E2.A10.1.2.2
(A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses) apply.
Five of the incidents occurred 18 or more years ago, and were reflective of immaturity,
alcoholism, and troubled relationships with girlfriends/spouses. Applicant is now a mature, happily
married man who has been alcohol-free for 23 years. Given that he no longer drinks alcohol, and is
not in a volatile relationship, it is highly unlikely that he will be involved in the type of incidents that
precipitated the arrests in the 1980s.
Nevertheless, the 2004 incident involving Applicant’s sister-in-law revives security-
worthiness issues related to his judgment and ability to control his temper. Both Applicant and his
sister-in-law were apprehensive and emotionally distraught over the health concerns of his wife at
the time of the incident. These emotions impaired their ability to rationally resolve their
disagreement. Instead, it escalated, culminating in Applicant being charged with assault and battery
for physically removing her from the home.
Applicant has not violated the law since 2004. Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC
MC) E2.A10.1.3.1 (The criminal behavior was not recent) applies. Also, given Applicant’s
commitment to marital fidelity and sobriety, in addition to the fact that he no longer has any contact
with his sister-in-law, I conclude CC MC E2.A10.1.3.4 (The factors leading to the violation are not
likely to recur) applies. 
Whole Person Concept
All of Applicant’s criminal conduct with the exception of one incident in 2004 occurred
eighteen or more years ago. Also, the majority of it stemmed from immaturity, alcohol abuse, and
troubled relationships with spouses or girlfriends. Applicant has overcome all of these problems. The
2004 incident, though unfortunate, is not indicative of a problem with criminality that may recur in
the future, given its surrounding circumstances, and the fact that he has committed no additional
criminal violations since that time.
Applying the whole person concept to the evaluation of Applicant’s case, I conclude he is
an industrious individual who is dedicated to his wife, contrite about his past transgressions, and
committed to staying out of trouble in the future. He has mitigated the criminal conduct security
concern.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
7
Paragraph 1–Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: For 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. Clearance is
granted.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge