KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Between 1995 and 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with criminal conduct on
three separate occasions. She is currently on probation for her most recent arrest, and it does not
expire until October 2007. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 07-01065.h1
DATE: 09/27/2007
DATE: September 26, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01065
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Between 1995 and 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with criminal conduct on three
separate occasions. She is currently on probation for her most recent arrest, and it does not expire
until October 2007. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 31, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) explaining why it was not clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated
February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended. She
answered the SOR on June 25, 2007, denying two of the three allegations and electing to have the
case decided on the written record.
Department Counsel mailed the government’s file of relevant material (FORM) to Applicant
on July 19, 2007. She received it on July 24, 2007. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. She neither objected to any
of the FORM submissions, nor filed any additional evidence to be considered. The case was assigned
to me on September 18, 2007 requesting an administrative determination.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
The SOR admission is incorporated into the findings of fact. In addition, I make the
following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 53-year-old single woman with two adult children. She has a high school
education. For the past 25 years she has worked for a defense contractor as an electronics fabricator
(Exhibit 4 at 1-3). 
One night in December 1995, Applicant and her boyfriend got into a heated argument in her
apartment. The confrontation escalated after he slapped her, pushed her into a wall, and began
punching her. She then grabbed a paring knife and stabbed him in the arm leaving a superficial
wound (Exhibit 5, Crime Report, dated December 24, 1995 at 3). The police responded to an
anonymous call, took statements from both individuals and charged Applicant with assault with a
deadly weapon (Id.). Her boyfriend was then arrested for several outstanding warrants unrelated to
the domestic incident. The charge against Applicant was later dismissed after her boyfriend failed
to appear for two successive pre-trial hearings.
In July 1999, Applicant was arrested and charged with battery and exhibiting a deadly
weapon other than a firearm after her adult daughter alleged she slapped  her and threatened her with
a knife during an argument (Exhibit 6, Police Report, dated July 24, 1999 at 3). Applicant admitted
slapping her, but denies brandishing a knife. The charges were later dismissed because of insufficient
evidence.
In August 2004, Applicant took her five-year-old granddaughter to a local wine festival. She
grew irritated with her after the child expressed a desire to leave. She then grabbed her, squeezing
her neck and pulling her hair, as she led her from the festival. Several people witnessed this behavior,
3
and one of them called the police. When the officer arrived, he took a statement from the
granddaughter, and observed “red linear bruising on each side of the rear portion of her neck”
(Exhibit 7, Police Report, dated August 1, 2004). 
Applicant was then arrested and charged with abusing or endangering the health of a child.
She was found guilty and sentenced to three years in jail, with all but two days suspended, and three
years of probation (Answer). Also, she was ordered to complete community service and parenting
classes, ordered to have no contact with her granddaughter, and ordered she not come within 100
yards of her while the probation is pending. The order expires in October 2007.
Applicant completed both the parenting classes and the community service, as ordered
(Answer at 5, 8).
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines, as revised December 29, 2005, and implemented September 1,
2006, apply to the analysis of this case. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, they 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; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include
knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the age of the
applicant; (5) the extent to which the participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent 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.
The following adjudicative guideline is raised:
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.
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
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.1
4
consistent with the national interest.”  In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions1
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
Guideline J
Between 1995 and 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with criminal conduct on three
separate occasions. She is currently on probation for her most recent arrest, and it does not expire
until October 2007. Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) 31 (a): a single serious
crime or multiple lesser offenses, and CC DC 31 (d): individual is currently on parole or probation,
apply.
Criminal activity does not have to result in a conviction in order to have negative security
implications. Nonetheless, I conclude the 1995 incident has little probative value. Applicant’s
accuser instigated the incident, did not appear for any pre-trial hearings, and had a prior criminal
record.
The 1999 charge has similarly limited probative value. It was based on her daughter’s
allegations, which Applicant denied, and was dismissed because of insufficient evidence. 
The 2004 charge, however, resulted in a conviction and a sentence to probation which she
is still serving. Although her completion of community service and parenting classes triggers the
application of Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC MC) 32 (d): there is evidence of
successful rehabilitation, it is insufficient to overcome the security concern.
Whole Person Concept
When viewed in its totality, Applicant has a history of volatile relationships with family
members and loved ones. I was particularly troubled by the immaturity and bad judgment displayed
in 2004 when she physically abused her granddaughter after getting irritated with her for wanting
to leave a festival. Consequently, although Applicant has demonstrated rehabilitation by completing
community service and parenting classes, it is too soon to conclude that she can be entrusted with
classified information. Clearance is denied.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
5
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge