KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: While the government has established a case under the criminal conduct guideline,
Applicant has mitigated those concerns. As Applicant terminated alcohol use in February 2000, I
find in his favor with regard to the four traffic offenses that occurred between 1988 and February
2000. Applicant’s successful completion of the 52-week batterer program, couple with 10 two-hour
group parenting sessions, demonstrates Applicant will not engage in the same disrespectful behavior
in the future. Clearance is granted. 
CASENO: 06-25765.h1
DATE: 08/16/2007
DATE:  August 16, 2007
In Re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25765
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PAUL J. MASON
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
While the Government has established a case under the criminal conduct guideline, Applicant
2
has mitigated those concerns. As Applicant terminated alcohol use in February 2000, I find in his
favor with regard to the four traffic offenses that occurred between 1988 and February 2000.
Applicant’s successful completion of the 52-week batterer program, coupled with 10 two-hour group
parenting sessions, demonstrates Applicant will not engage in the same disrespectful and
inappropriate behavior in the future. Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE 
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. On February 28, 2007, under Executive Order 10865 and
Department of Defense Directive 5200.6, with revised Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September
1, 2006, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the reasons for its security concerns
raised under the criminal conduct guideline (Guideline J) of the Directive. In his notarized answer
dated April 11, 2007, Applicant submitted responses to each SOR allegation, and requested a
decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. 
A copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM, the Government’s evidence
in support of the SOR) was sent to Applicant on April 26, 2007. He received the FORM on May 4,
2007. Applicant’s response was submitted on May 30, 2007. The case was assigned to me for
decision on June 19, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 46 years old and has been employed by a defense contractor since November
2001. He has held a security clearance since December 2003. He has been married since 1996, and
has two children. He seeks a security clearance. 
In defense of his misdemeanor battery conviction in February 2005 (subparagraph 1.a.),
Applicant explained, “The case was the result of an October 2004 incident between my wife, [wife],
and me. We had a brief argument regarding my oldest daughter [daughter] who was 8 years old at
the time. Our argument escalated to the point where it became physical when she slapped me in the
mouth and I pushed her back away from me. The entire incident lasted not more than 5 seconds.”
(Answer to SOR) According to Applicant, when his wife attempted to drop the charges, the
prosecutor threatened to call his daughter though she did not witness the battery. Applicant contends
he pled no contest so his daughter would not have to testify about the battery Applicant claims she
did not see. Applicant satisfied all conditions of his sentence. 
Two of the conditions of his SOR 1.a. sentence were completion of 52 weeks of a batterers
program and 10 two hour parenting sessions (subparagraph 1.b.) at the county children and family
organization. Applicant successfully completed both conditions. On October 25, 2005, he received
a certificate indicating he had successfully completed 20 hours of active parenting skills. On March
27, 2007, Applicant received a statement from the program coordinator of the rehabilitation program
chronicling his commitment to remedying the behavioral issues related to the battery of his wife. In
the statement, the program coordinator stated, “In my 14 years of managing the program[,] I am hard
 Applicant indicated in his sworn statement dated May 9, 2003 (Item 7) that he last used alcohol in February1
2000. On February 1, 2007, Applicant noted in his answers to interrogatories that February 4, 2000 was the last time he
consumed alcohol. 
3
pressed to think of anyone who has demonstrated how to behave appropriately more than
[Applicant].”
Applicant denied still being on probation as alleged subparagraph 1.c. of the SOR because
he was discharged from probation on March 29, 2007. He stated that he included a copy of the court
papers showing he is no longer on probation. No court documents were provided. 
Between April 1988 and February 2005, Applicant was charged with four driving offenses
and a domestic battery of his wife. In April 1988 (subparagraph 1.g.), Applicant was charged with
driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Applicant had been drinking before the arrest.
He pled guilty to the charge and completed all sentence conditions. In 1995 (subparagraph 1.f.),
Applicant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of reckless driving after being charged with DUI.
He completed all sentence conditions.
In April 1999, Applicant was charged with a misdemeanor of hit and run (subparagraph 1.e.).
Applicant avers that one of his car tires exploded on the highway, causing his car to spin
uncontrollably. During the spin, he hit another car but could not recall that he had. Several months
after the tire explosion, Applicant was charged with hit and run. He pled no contest to leaving the
scene of an accident. He satisfied all court-conditions of his sentence. 
In February 2000, Applicant was charged with DUI (subparagraph 1.d.). In April 2000, he
was found guilty of the charge, and served 45 days in jail. In his answer, Applicant noted that his last
use of alcohol occurred in February 2000.1
In his response to the government’s FORM, Applicant theorized that if he represented a
danger to the national security, then his security clearance would have been revoked in October 2004
after the battery offense. He observed, “All other cases mentioned in the “File of Relevant Material”
document, with the exception of the 2004 battery incident, has been investigated and clearance has
been granted.” 
Applicant provided no other character evidence from independent sources regarding his job
performance, behavior away from the job, or current relations with his wife. 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth guidelines containing disqualifying conditions (DC)
and mitigating conditions (MC) that should be given binding consideration in making security
clearance determinations. These conditions must be considered in every case along with the general
factors of the whole person concept. However, the conditions are not automatically determinative
of the decision in any case nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own
common sense. 
4
Burden of Proof
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the
personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualifies, or may disqualify, the applicant
from being eligible for access to classified information. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 531 (1988) “[T]he Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between
proven conduct under any of the Criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.” ISCR
Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct.
7, 1993)). 
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. “[S]ecurity clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Egan, 481 U.S. at 531; see
Directive E2.2.2.
Criminal Conduct
The guideline addresses criminal activity that casts doubt on a person’s judgment, reliability
and trustworthiness. A person who cannot comply with the law may not be a suitable candidate to
safeguard classified information.
CONCLUSIONS
Criminal conduct (CC) raises questions about a person’s judgment. If he has engaged in a
pattern of violating the law, then he may be willing to transgress selective security rules and
regulations he chooses not to comply with. Between April 1988 and February 2000, Applicant
engaged in four serious traffic offenses. After a four-year hiatus, Applicant committed misdemeanor
battery on his wife in October 2004. 
In April 1988, Applicant was found guilty of DUI. In 1995, Applicant committed the same
offense although he pled guilty to the lesser included offense of reckless driving. In April 1999, he
was found guilty of misdemeanor hit and run driving. Applicant’s third DUI offense in February
2000 cost him 45 days in jail. Finally, Applicant’s battery of his wife in October 2004 required
Applicant to complete a 52-week batterers program and 10 weeks of group parenting. Applicant’s
criminal record between 1988 and February 2005 invokes CC disqualifying condition (DC) 31.a. (a
single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses) Because three of the five offenses between April
1988 and February 2005 were alcohol-related, it is fair to conclude that alcohol contributed a large
part to Applicant’s criminal behavior during the period between 1988 and February 2000. With
Applicant’s alcohol-related driving record, he was fortunate not to have his driving privileges
indefinitely suspended or permanently revoked. He was also fortunate to realize he could no longer
consume alcohol. His statements declaring abstention for seven years are credible. Therefore, CC
mitigating condition (MC) 31. 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) is
partially applicable due to Applicant’s cessation of alcohol use in February 2000. 
5
Applicant exercised good judgment in February 2000 by ending his association with alcohol.
Yet, anger management issues apparently continued unattended until October 2004 when he hit his
wife, and culminated in his conviction in February 2005 for misdemeanor battery. Though the 36-
month sentence suggests Applicant may have done much more to his wife that just push her, there
is insufficient evidence to infer that Applicant used more force than he claims. Moreover, the
program coordinator’s comments clearly show that the 52-week program inculcated positive
adjustments in Applicant’s overall behavior. As the coordinator stated, “In my 14 years of managing
the program[,] I am hard pressed to think of anyone who has demonstrated how to behave
appropriately more than [Applicant].” The partial mitigation Applicant receives under CC MC 32.d.
for seven years of sobriety is augmented by the glowing report from Applicant’s program coordinator
in March 2007 based on his successful completion of the domestic battery program. 
The favorable result Applicant receives under the CC guideline justifies the same result when
the circumstances of this case are viewed in the context of the whole person model. Seven years of
sobriety and the successful completion of 52 weeks of counseling, including 10 two-hour parenting
sessions, persuasively demonstrates Applicant’s past criminal conduct is unlikely to recur in the
future. 
An issue raised by Applicant in his response to the FORM warrants discussion. A person’s
security suitability is always at issue. Even though Applicant’s earlier security investigation may
have resulted in Applicant’s favor, although it also may have lasted longer than he anticipated, the
government always has the right to launch a security investigation into a person’s past criminal
history, particularly when the past history includes other more recent, adverse behavior. The
government was entitled to investigate and review the security concerns of Applicant’s traffic
offenses in light of his recent misdemeanor battery offense in October 2004. 
My overall commonsense decision gives Applicant credit for disengaging from alcohol use
in February 2000, and also overcoming his anger issues through documented treatment for his anger
issues and parenting deficiencies at the county rehabilitation center. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 (Criminal Conduct, Guideline J): FOR THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph a. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph b. For the Applicant. 
Subpargraph c. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph d. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph e. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph f. For the Applicant.
Subparagraph g. For the Applicant.
6
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. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge