KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant has mitigated security concerns arising from the criminal conduct incidents of
domestic violence through the passage of time and rehabilitation. Applicant did not deliberately
falsify information on his security clearance application, thus mitigating personal conduct security
concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-24021.h1
DATE: 08/23/2007
DATE: August 23, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24021
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant has mitigated security concerns arising from the criminal conduct incidents of
domestic violence through the passage of time and rehabilitation. Applicant did not deliberately
falsify information on his security clearance application, thus mitigating personal conduct security
concerns. Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance is granted.
GX 1(Application of Security Clearance (SF 86), dated August 18, 2005).1
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive2
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
Tr. 15.3
GX 1 (Application for Security Clearance (SF 86), dated August 18, 2005).4
Applicant also had two stepchildren in his first marriage. During his second marriage, he adopted a daughter.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 18, 2005, Applicant completed his security clearance (SF 86) application.   On1
December 21, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant.  The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal2
Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued
on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of  Defense effective September 1,
2006. The revised guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued. The SOR
detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary finding under the Directive that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and
recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted,
continued, denied, or revoked.
On February 2, 2007,  Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR allegations, and
elected to have his case decided at a hearing. On June 18, 2007, the case was assigned to me. A
Notice of Hearing was issued on July 12, 2007. At the August 1, 2007 hearing, the Government
introduced two Government Exhibits (GX) 1-2  into evidence without objections. Applicant testified
and introduced Applicant Exhibits (AX) A-D into evidence without objections from Department
Counsel. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on August 10, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted allegations in subparagraphs 1.a and 2.a in his SOR response under
Guideline J and Guideline E.  After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon due3
consideration, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor. After graduation from high
school in 1977, he worked in his family’s alarm business. Applicant completed several training
courses in electronics and alarm systems for his work over the years. Eventually, he opened his own
business. After retirement, he decided to work for a defense contractor. He has worked for his current
employer since April 1999.   He is twice divorced and is currently married with one biological son,4
who is seven years old, and two adult stepchildren.5
Applicant’s third marriage has been very difficult and tumultuous. He and his wife lived
together a few years before marriage. They had a child in 1999, and married in 2000. Many domestic
instances have occurred over the years, and Applicant has filed charges against his wife several
Tr.19.6
Tr.7
Tr.62.8
GX 2 (Municipal Court citation).9
Id.10
Tr. 36.11
4
times.  Shortly after the marriage in 2001, Applicant’s wife filed a charge for simple assault-6
domestic violence against him. After an argument led to a physical altercation, Applicant suffered
eight broken ribs. When the police were called to the home, however,  charges were filed against
Applicant. His wife did not appear in court for the charges and there is no information on the
disposition of the case.7
During this period in his marriage, Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law lived with
him and his wife in his home.  The parents-in-law were both alcoholics and were often evicted from
their own home due to inability to pay the rent. When they lived with Applicant, they would drink
heavily. On one occasion, December 20, 2001, Applicant decided he had enough. He told his wife,
her two children, and her parents to leave the house. Things became heated. Applicant called 911.
When the police arrived, his mother-in-law was passed out in front of the house and his father-in-law
was passed out on the bed in one of the rooms. Applicant remembers that the entire family was taken
to the police station, but does not recall what happened in court.8
On July 9, 2004, Applicant came home and found a female friend of his wife’s smoking
marijuana in front of his young son. His wife’s friend was temporarily living with them at the time
because her husband was in jail.  Applicant told his wife that her friend needed to move out because
he feared she would be a bad influence on his son.  His wife said ‘no” and they argued. Charges were
filed, but Applicant was found not guilty of simple assault-domestic violence.9
In January 2005, he was charged and pled guilty to simple assault.  This incident occurred10
after his wife moved out of the house with his son and neglected to tell him where they were going.
Applicant found his wife with another man who had their son in his possession. Applicant argued
with the man. He wanted his son and the man grabbed him. Applicant grabbed him and swung at
him. The man filed charges against Applicant. Applicant was not arrested at the time of the incident.
However, police came to his home and had an arrest warrant for him. He went peacefully with the
police to the department, and was released under a signature bond. 
Applicant was also charged with making threatening phone calls to this man.  He testified
credibly that he did not even know the man and did not make any threatening phone calls. He
believes this was an attempt by his wife to tarnish his name. He testified at the hearing  that he pled
not guilty to any threatening or harassing phone calls. He thought the Judge dismissed the charges
when the Judge learned that Applicant’s wife was still married to him.  He was fined for each11
charge, totaling $170.00. The Municipal Court report confirms the fines but details a conviction of
Guilty on February 2, 2005 for both charges.
5
Applicant wanted his third marriage to succeed for the sake of his only biological son. He
admitted there were so many times that he and his wife argued that he did not always remember the
exact incident. He was adamant that he filed charges against his wife several times and that he has
never struck a woman. He paid many fines in court after the domestic violence incidents, but he
believed his name had been cleared. Applicant feared that he and his wife would lose custody of their
son. He went to parenting class alone. He even considered filing for divorce so that he could keep
his son safe. He voluntarily went to anger management classes and a family values class in late 2004.
He also attended parenting counseling. Applicant sought such education voluntarily because he
wanted to save the marriage for his only son. He also was concerned that if a custody issue arose in
the future, he would be in a stronger position with the family counseling. He, his wife, and their son
now live alone in the family home. His wife’s parents are now deceased and the two stepsons are out
of the home.
In August 2005, Applicant, his wife, and son were together. Hurricane Katrina forced them
to move to another state  after they lost their home in the flooding. His son attended a new school
and was doing well. Applicant continued to do well at work and received a promotion. Applicant
obtained family counseling for six months, from February until July 2006. The family situation was
steadily improving.
On November 5, 2006, Applicant, his wife and his seven year old son were in an automobile
accident on November 5, 2006. Their car was hit at a great speed, and all three were injured.
Applicant’s wife suffered very serious injuries to her hip and leg.  She required physical therapy and
still has trouble with her mobility. Applicant’s son was traumatized by the accident, and received
counseling at his school. Applicant states the accident, although tragic, has brought them together
as a family. He spends more time with his son. His wife is less volatile and has seen a counselor.
Applicant feels they all work together as a team. There have been no incidents in more than two
years. He now has tools to deal with disagreements when they arise. 
When Applicant completed his security clearance application on August 18, 2005, he
responded “no” to Section 23. F Your Police Record: In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for,
charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not listed in response to a, b, c, d, or e above? (Leave
out traffic fines of less than $150 unless the violation was alcohol or drug related.)  In his first
answer to the SOR, he did not respond to this allegation. A second request was made for him to
answer the SOR. This time he admitted to the charge of the falsification as to question 23 F on his
security application. He said that after speaking with his security manager, he realized the need to
disclose any incident regardless of the outcome. At the hearing, he further explained that he believed
because he had only paid a fine and it was less than $150  that he did not have to list it on the SF 86.
He acknowledged that he made a mistake by failing to disclose information related to the above. He
elaborated that when he went through the paperwork prior to the hearing, he spoke to his security
manager who told him that any violation should be listed on the security form, even if Applicant was
only charged and found not guilty. At the hearing, Applicant seemed quite confused about the
various incidents. He said that there were so many domestic situations that he believed as long as
he was found not guilty his record was clear. In fact, on the security application he made other
mistakes such as not listing his son or his stepchildren. He also believed that when he paid a fine for
the 2005 simple assault and harassment that it was not a conviction. At the hearing, he stated it was
so confusing that he needed a hearing to clear up the answers that he gave to the SOR.  I found his
testimony credible. He did not intend to deceive or lie about the domestic charges.
AX A ( Certificate of Achievement) dated June 29, 2006.12
AX B (Certificate of Achievement) dated December 11, 2006.13
Id.14
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  15
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.16
 Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) 2 (a)(1)-(9).17
6
Applicant earned a Certificate of Achievement from his current employer in 2006.  He is12
noted for extraordinary professional performance,  going above and beyond normally assigned duties
by assuming additional responsibilities in an outstanding manner, and supporting three shipyards and
saving costs to the facility. When his facility was inspected by Homeland Security, his group
received an award due to the extraordinary performance.   In addition, his position requires13
diligence, attention to detail and exemplary security protocol as to all things pertaining to the
national defense. Applicant served admirably in his capacity.  He has received three promotions and14
supervises a large number of employees. He is in charge of all security for his company.
POLICIES
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.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding15
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the adjudicative
process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and AG ¶ 2(a).
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”    An administrative16
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1)17
the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to
include knowledgeable participation; (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 pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for
the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of
 Id.18
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.19
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.20
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).21
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.22
7
continuation or recurrence.   18
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR
that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified
information.  Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,19
extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is20
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt21
as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be
resolved in favor of the national security.22
The scope of an administrative judge’s decision is limited. Nothing in this Decision should
be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied
determinations as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. Discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
 
Guideline J: Criminal Conduct
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.
By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules
and regulations. 
Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) AG ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses) and CC DC AG ¶ 31(c) (allegations or admission of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted) applies.
Applicant acknowledged that he was involved in the three altercations (domestic violence). Moreover,
he has a February 2005 conviction for simple assault and threatening phone calls.
Mitigating Condition (MC CC) AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time elapsed since the criminal behavior
happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) applies in this case.
Applicant’s conviction for simple assault occurred when he was trying to get his son back from a
stranger. Despite the fact that Applicant believed he only received a fine, his court records confirm the
8
conviction. However, the domestic situation has drastically improved since that time. For more than
two years, the family has lived without incident.
Applicant’s marriage was in crisis for a period of years. His alcoholic in-laws added to the
crisis. His wife’s sons were also in the home at one point. His wife left the home and took his only son
without Applicant’s knowledge. Today, his in-laws are deceased and he and his wife have had
counseling. MC CC AG ¶ 32(b) (the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and
those pressures are no longer present in the person’s life) partially applies.
MC DC AG ¶ 32(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to
the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or
higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement) applies.
Applicant has voluntarily sought family counseling, anger management classes and family values
classes. He has persevered because he wants to provide a good, safe home for his son. He has been
very successful in his work. He has not mishandled anything and has garnered promotions and praise..
Guideline E: Personal Conduct
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to
cooperate with the security clearance process.
Applicant answered “no” to Question 23 (f). He did not list any domestic violence incidents
on his security application for a number of reasons. He did not believe his record had any convictions,
thus he had nothing to report. He believed that because he had paid fines  each time he went to court,
the actual charges had been dismissed.
Applicant did not answer the allegations as to falsification the first time. When he received the
SOR the second time, he spoke to his security manager who advised him to list any thing that ever
happened. He then admitted to allegation 2.a because he had omitted that information. He requested
a hearing to explain the confusion. I found his testimony credible. He misunderstood the question at
the time and did not know that he had to list the domestic violence until after he spoke to his security
manager. He did not intend to deceive or lie.  Thus, Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC
DC) 16 (a) (deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel
security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations,
determine employment qualifications, award benefit or status, determine security clearance eligibility
or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities) does not apply.
Whole Person
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a
person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering
9
the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
clearance determination. Applicant is a hard working man who excels in his professional life. He has
worked through several crisis in his marriage. He values his wife and his only son. Despite stressors
from his wife’s behavior, her parent’s alcohol and her difficult stepchildren, he persevered. He
attended anger management classes, parenting classes and sought professional counseling. He wanted
to make his marriage work for his family. The domestic violence issues were not because he was an
abusive husband. At times he was the victim. He now has a better idea of how to handle difficult
situations in his marriage. Many of the earlier pressures are not longer present in his marriage.
Applicant has proven trustworthy in his work during these many years of his troubled marriage. He
has received various promotions and certificates. There is little likelihood of a recurrence of past
behavior. I find that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security for Applicant to have
a security clearance. Clearance is granted.
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:
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
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Clearance is granted.
10
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge