DATE:  October 15, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00502
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Britt Cauthen, Esq.,
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has mitigated security concerns arising from the criminal conduct incidents of
domestic violence through the passage of time and rehabilitation. Applicant also mitigated the
alcohol consumption security concerns. Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance is granted.
GX 1(Application of Security Clearance (SF 86), dated November 10, 2004).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).
Applicant, through his counsel, waived the 15 day notice requirement.3
Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated July 25, 2007.4
GX 1 (Application for Security Clearance (SF 86), dated November 10, 2004).5
Id.6
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 10, 2004, Applicant completed his security clearance (SF 86) application.1
On July 3, 2007, 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 G (Alcohol Consumption) 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 July 25, 2007, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR allegations, and
elected to have his case decided at a hearing. On August 29, 2007, the case was assigned to me. A
Notice of Hearing was issued on September 14, 2007.  At the scheduled hearing, conducted by video3
teleconference, on September 20, 2007, the Government introduced five Government Exhibits (GX)
1-5 into evidence without objections. Applicant testified and introduced Applicant Exhibits (AX)
A-E into evidence without objections from Department Counsel. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.)
on September 28, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted allegations in subparagraphs 1.a -h, and subparagraphs 2.a-b in his SOR
response under Guideline J and Guideline G with explanation.  After a complete review of the4
evidence in the record and upon due consideration, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor. After receiving his GED in
1977, he worked for various companies. He has worked for his current employer since November
2002.   He is twice divorced with two children.   5 6
GX 2 (Criminal History Printout).7
Id.8
Tr. 73.9
Tr. 31.10
Tr. 40-43.11
3
Applicant started drinking when he was approximately 18 years old. In 1988, Applicant was
driving a motorcycle and was pulled over by the police. He was charged with driving under the
influence of liquor. He was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine and court costs.7
In 1989, Applicant was charged with larceny of property 2  degree. He was found guilty,nd
sentenced to two years confinement (suspended), with two years probation. This incident occurred
when he walked into a stereo store intending to shoplift. He took a radio/cd changer and hid it under
his jacket. On his way out of the store, he decided to put it back. When he pled guilty, he did not
have a lawyer and was not aware of the youthful offender act. Nonetheless, Applicant admits the
incident and was convicted.8
On July 1, 1990, Applicant was charged with driving under the influence of liquor. He was
found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine, and court costs. This incident occurred during the July 4th
weekend. Applicant was driving in a campground when his friend almost fell out of the car after
leaning on the door. Applicant reached out to grab him and the car swerved. A police officer stopped
Applicant and after smelling alcohol on his breath gave him the alcohol test which he failed.9
Applicant married his second wife in 1999. His second marriage was a deeply troubled one.
He traveled a great deal of time for work and his wife did not work. His wife often left the home and
used drugs. She was addicted to various drugs and her behavior was often erratic. Applicant
acknowledged smoking marijuana with his wife on a regular basis. They also drank heavily and often
frequented bars. During this marriage, Applicant was involved in following domestic violence
incidents.10
In 2001, Applicant was charged with assault 2  degree. This incident occurred in a nightclub.nd
Applicant’s wife complained to him that someone was bothering her on the dance floor. Applicant
advised his wife to remain with him, however, she did not. She pointed out the male who was
harassing her to her husband (Applicant). When Applicant walked over the man and tapped him on
the shoulder, the man pushed Applicant three times. Applicant had a beer in his hand and swung it
at the man.  When Applicant left the bar, he was approached by the police. Applicant explained the
situation and both men agreed not to press charges.  About a month later, Applicant was charged
with assault. At that time he had a marijuana joint in his pocket. He was later charged with
smuggling contraband and promoting prison contraband. He was convicted, sentenced to six months
confinement, six years six months suspended, three years probation and fined. The smuggling
contraband charges were nolle prossed.11
On March 28, 2002, Applicant was charged with domestic violence 3  harassment. This caserd
was nolle prossed with conditions. This incident occurred when Applicant’s wife left home to get
Tr. 33-34.12
Tr. 36.13
Tr. 37.14
GX 5 (Answers to Interrogatories, dated May 2007).15
AX D and E (Certificate of Completion and Progress Notes from therapist, dated 2003-2004).16
4
drugs and left the children alone. Applicant went to retrieve his wife. He decided to go home and get
the children and leave with them. She returned to the home as they were leaving. Applicant’s wife
tried to stop the car that was backing out of the driveway. She jumped into the car and fought with
Applicant to gain control of the steering wheel. A neighbor witnessed this and alerted the police.
Applicant was stopped a short distance from home. He was pulled over and the officer told Applicant
that he should leave the children with his wife. Applicant refused but the police officer gave an
ultimatum. Applicant refused to do so and was put in jail. 12
On April 11, 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with domestic violence 3  degree-rd
assault -menacing. This case was nolle prossed with conditions. This incident occurred when he was
separated from his wife. They had an altercation at a public place and a friend of his wife’s
threatened Applicant.  Applicant followed his wife and her friend for the purpose of taking pictures
of them. A little while after this, Applicant was stopped by a county sheriff. The sheriff had a report
that Applicant had a gun and had threatened his wife and her male friend. Applicant did not have a
gun and the charges were dismissed.13
On May 5, 2002, Applicant was charged with domestic violence. He and his second wife had
gone to a concert. His wife was drinking and became belligerent.  They got into a heated argument,
and he learned that she was having an affair. She was in the car with him and attempted to use the
cell phone. Applicant was angry and reached over to knock the phone out of her hand. He “busted”
her nose.”  Before reaching home, they stopped at a public restroom and Applicant’s wife went in14
the building. A security guard saw her and called the police. Applicant went to jail for 72 hours and
was released. Applicant was sentenced to six months but was released early for good behavior.  15
In 2003, Applicant divorced his second wife. He realized his wife was addicted to drugs and
that she was having an affair. He loved her but realized he would not be able to change her. He made
the choice to turn his life around.
On January 23, 2004, Applicant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The
charge was nolle prossed, with conditions, and Applicant was sentenced to pay court costs. This
incident occurred after Applicant started his treatment program. However, Applicant explained his
ex-wife was harassing him. He went to a bar and then took a taxi to his car. He then drove home.
From November 2003, until June 2004, Applicant received treatment for alcohol and drugs.
He does not have a diagnosis for alcohol abuse or dependence. He also completed an anger
management program. No further treatment was required. During this period, Applicant realized he
needed to stop using marijuana. He then stopped drinking and smoking marijuana because he wanted
to save himself and gain custody of his son.  16
AX C (Letter from Church Pastor, dated September 18, 2007).17
Tr. 49.18
AX A (Letter from President of company, dated 2007).19
Tr. 91.20
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  21
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.22
 Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) 2(a)(1)-(9).23
5
On June 24, 2005, Applicant married his third wife. They both attend church and are
involved in community activities.  Applicant received custody of his son. He acknowledges that he17
and his current wife occasionally drink on a special occasion. He does not drink and drive.18
Applicant works for a technology engineering service. The president of the company highly
recommends Applicant for a security clearance.  Applicant is a senior computer engineer. He is19
highly respected for his work. He is considered one of the foremost web developers in the country.
His company president vouches for his character and reputation. In the years of employment,
Applicant has never had any difficulty at work.20
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, Safeguarding21
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 administrative22
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)23
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
 Id.24
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.25
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.26
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).27
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.28
6
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
continuation or recurrence.   24
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.25
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent26
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether27
access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor
of the national security.28
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 admitted the domestic violence charges and his alcohol-related driving offenses. Despite
the fact that some of the charges were dismissed, he either pled guilty or was convicted on others.
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) partially applies in this
7
case. Applicant’s convictions for domestic violence occurred when he was married to his second wife.
His wife was addicted to drugs and the relationship was highly charged. The last incident was in 2002.
However, his domestic situation has drastically improved since that time. Applicant is divorced from
his second wife. He remarried in 2005 and the court gave him custody of his son.
Applicant’s marriage was in crisis for a period of years. Applicant made bad choices during
the marriage to keep the family together for his son. His wife put pressure on Applicant, which
adversely affected his judgment and ability to adhere to the law. He now has custody of his son and
his second wife is no longer part of his life. 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 completed an anger management class and alcohol and drug psychological-educational
program. 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 classified information or sensitive information and
has garnered promotions and praise. He is active in his church and his community.
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the
failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and
trustworthiness.
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant was arrested in
1988, and 1989 for under age alcohol-related driving incidents. His last alcohol incident was in 2004.
Consequently, Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition (AC DC) AG ¶ 22(b) alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse,
disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed
as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent applies.
Applicant admitted consuming alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from
approximately 1998 until at least May 2007. AC DC AG ¶ 22(c) habitual or binge consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an
alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent applies.
With the government’s case initially established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present
evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him. I considered the
Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) AG ¶ 23 (a) so much time has passed, or the
behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Applicant’s 1988 and 1989 under age drinking are very remote in time. Applicant asserted that
his drinking no longer plays a major role in his life. He does acknowledge that he drinks on a special
occasion but does not drink and drive. His driving incident involving alcohol was in 2004. He has
since moderated his drinking and is no longer married to his second wife. He does not associate with
8
friends or associates who drink heavily. His current employer has traveled with Applicant and attests
to the fact that Applicant has never had alcohol at work or on his travels with Applicant. Applicant’s
heaviest drinking occurred during his second marriage. He has completed an alcohol education
program. Applicant’s personal life has changed sufficiently that he is now less likely to find himself
in the same circumstances that led to his alcohol use and related misconduct. I conclude this guideline
for Applicant.
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
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 had problems in his youth with alcohol. He married at an early age,
divorced and then remarried in 1999. His second marriage was a disaster. During the course of that
marriage, he was involved in a number of domestic violence incidents. His wife was addicted to drugs
and Applicant remained married or in a relationship with his troubled spouse. He attempted to reduce
the impact of his wife’s erratic behavior on their family for the sake of his son.  Applicant extricated
himself from that marriage. Since the divorce in 2003, Applicant has not had any instances of domestic
violence. He is now married to a woman who helps him take care of his son. The court awarded
Applicant the custody of his son. Applicant has an exemplary record of employment. He is mature and
responsible at work and has earned promotions and the praise of the company president who appeared
and testified on his behalf. Applicant also successfully completed a rehabilitation program. He now
has a good family and community support system. His third marriage is stable. His professional life
is replete with commendations. His current employer of five years reports no attendance problems,
irresponsibility or dishonesty. He is deemed trustworthy in his work. Applicant has overcome the
doubts about his ability to exercise the requisite judgment and discretion expected of one who holds
a security clearance.
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
9
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
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: 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.
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge