KEYWORD: Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant, a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor, mitigated allegations of
criminal conduct arising from a series of offenses while in the Army in the 1980's and thereafter in
the mid-1990's leading to a conviction on a drug charge resulting in incarceration for seven months
in 1997. Since then he has substantially improved his conduct with no criminal record other than one
minor traffic offense. He has demonstrated his rehabilitation for ten years. He mitigated a personal
conduct allegation concerning failure to list a 1993 security clearance revocation at Question 32 on
his security clearance application (SF 86) of July 8, 2004, by establishing that he was unaware of the
revocation since he had left the Army three months before the revocation and was not notified of it.
Clearance is granted. 
CASENO: 05-06890.h1
DATE: 06/14/2007
DATE:  June 14, 2007
In Re:
-----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-06890
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq. , Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor, mitigated allegations of criminal
conduct arising from a series of offenses while in the Army in the 1980's and thereafter in the mid-
1990's leading to a conviction on a drug charge resulting in incarceration for seven months in 1997.
Since then he has substantially improved his conduct with no criminal record other than one minor
traffic offense. He has demonstrated his rehabilitation for ten years. He mitigated a personal conduct
allegation concerning failure to list a 1993 security clearance revocation at Question 32 on his
security clearance application (SF 86) of July 8, 2004, by establishing that he was unaware of the
revocation since he had left the Army three months before the revocation and was not notified of it.
Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On December 11, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the
preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be
referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued,
denied, or revoked.
On January 19, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations, and requested a hearing.
The matter was assigned to me on March 26, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on April 11,
2007, for a hearing on April 24, 2007, and held that day. The government offered 17 exhibits and
all were admitted into evidence. Applicant offered none at the hearing, but the record was left open
for 30 days. Applicant submitted one additional exhibit with six attachments that was admitted in
evidence without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf. The transcript was received on
May 2, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the specific facts of the two SOR allegations but provided explanatory
information. After a complete review of the record, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor who works as network analyst
for hourly wages. Between 1986 and December 1992 he was on active duty in the Army when he
held a security clearance. During his military service he was charged with a number of offenses
relating to drugs and alcohol in 1988, 1989, and 1991 (SOR ¶ 2.a., b.,c., and d.) As a result of this
conduct the Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility (facility) sent him for a
psychological evaluation for the purpose of determining eligibility for holding a security clearance.
This was done by a letter dated May 17, 1992, to the commander of his organization. The evaluation
was made on July 21, 1992, and signed by a licensed psychologist in the psychiatry department. It
recommended alcohol rehabilitation treatment on an outpatient basis and noted that Applicant was
3
unaware of the reason for the evaluation. (Exh. 14). 
A Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke his security clearance was sent by the facility on October
19, 1992, through his commander (Exh. 15). During the period from the time of his evaluation in
July 1992 until he was honorably discharged as an E-4 in December 1992, he was attempting to get
an early discharge to attend a trade school and was not at any fixed assignment on the base. The
facility did not receive a response to the LOI, so a final revocation letter was sent to the commander
on March 2, 1993, after Applicant had left the service (Exh. 16) and moved to his home three months
earlier. He was not advised of this action because he had left his mother’s address for forwarding.
When he arrived home, he discovered that she had moved to a new address but he did not file a new
address with the Army. 
In his application for a security clearance (SF 86) filed July 8, 2004, Applicant did not report
at Question 32 that his security clearance has been revoked by the Army on March 2, 1993, since he
did not receive the LOI or the revocation documents. 
After leaving the Army, Applicant had a series of drug offenses in 1994, 1995, and 1996
(SOR ¶ 2.e., f., and g.). The last two involved a probation violation and several drug charges. These
were consolidated, and he pled guilty to one of the charges. He was sentenced to four years
imprisonment, but served only seven months between September 1996 and April 1997 (Exh. 2). The
incarceration was a wake-up call for Applicant. After his release he changed his life, enrolled in
Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and has not used alcohol or drugs for ten years.
His only legal infraction in the past ten years has been one speeding ticket in 2000. 
Applicant is well regarded by his employer (Exh.A 1-4) for his technical and management
skills, and his work ethic. He was married in 1997 and has three children ages 18, 13 and 7 for whom
he is responsible. He has owned his own home since May 2000. He has an associate degree in
information technology management. 
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has “the authority to control access to
information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently
trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information.” Id. at 527.
An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration
of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (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 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, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to do so.” Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
Initially, the government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the
4
evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which
disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information
See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved
in favor of the national security.” Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 §
3.1(b).
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
Applicant’s failure to report the revocation of his security clearance in 1993 prompted the
allegations of security concerns under the revised Adjudicative Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Such conduct might indicate questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations and could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified
information (AG ¶ 15). Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
and material facts in a personnel security interview could raise a security concern and be
disqualifying. (AG ¶ 16 a). The circumstances of the revocation action after he had left the service,
the statement of the psychologist (Exh. 14) that Applicant was unaware of the reason for his
evaluation, and his credible testimony that he did not receive notice of the LOI or the revocation, and
was unaware of the action taken until receipt of the SOR warrants a determination in his favor on
this allegation. 
Under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct, a security concern arises when there is a history of
criminal activity that creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness (AG
¶ 30). Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include allegations
or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, prosecuted
or convicted (AG ¶ 31 c), or a single serious offense or multiple lesser offenses (AG ¶ 31 a). The
criminal conduct of Applicant during his Army service and the period up to and including his
incarceration ending in 1997 was sufficient to warrant the allegation under this guideline. The
allegations could be mitigated if so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior occurred that
it unlikely to recur. (AG ¶ 32 a), or there is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation (AG ¶ 32 d).
The fact that all the offenses are now ten years old or older and there has been evidence of successful
rehabilitation over the past ten years warrants application of both mitigating conditions. 
In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. 
The “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of their acts
5
and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant
circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. Applicant led
a troubled life with several arrests and charges both during his military service and the period
thereafter which led finally to his incarceration. He has changed his conduct over the past ten years
and now holds a responsible position with family obligations which he fulfilling. 
After considering all the evidence in its totality, including the whole person of Applicant, I
conclude a security clearance should be granted.
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.g.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or renew a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge