DATE:  December 11, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00926
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
In 2004, Applicant shot a pellet gun at a neighbor during a heated dispute, and was later
arrested and charged with deadly conduct. He received a five-year deferred adjudication with
supervised probation to run concurrently. Upon evaluating the isolated nature of the conduct, its
surrounding circumstances, Applicant’s remorse, and his probation officer’s strong, unequivocal
character reference, I conclude he has mitigated the criminal conduct security concern. Clearance is
granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exhibit B.1
Tr. 26.2
Exhibit O.3
Tr. 29.4
Exhibits J and L.5
Tr. 55.6
Tr. 33.7
2
On June 7, 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.
DOHA received his answer and request for a hearing on August 23, 2007.
The case was assigned to me on September 20, 2007. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on
October 1, 2007, scheduling it for October 23, 2007. During the hearing, I received three government
exhibits, 16 Applicant exhibits and Applicant’s testimony. I left the record open at Applicant’s
request to allow him an opportunity to submit an exhibit that he had been unable to obtain in advance
of the hearing. Within the time allotted, he submitted it and I incorporated into the record. DOHA
received the transcript on October 31, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
Applicant admitted the lone SOR allegation and I have incorporated it into the findings of fact.
In addition, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 46-year-old married man with one daughter, age six. He is a U.S. Air Force
veteran who served from 1982 through 1986 when he was honorably discharged.  He has worked his1
entire career, including his stint in the Air Force, in the aircraft mechanics field. 
From 1991 to1993, Applicant attended a junior college earning an associate’s degree, and an
air framing and power plant license.  An honor student, he was elected to Who’s Who Among Students2
in American Junior Colleges, in addition to the Phi Theta Kappa Society, an organization honoring
outstanding two-year college students, in 1993.  Throughout college, he worked three jobs.3
Currently, Applicant is a field and service mechanic who tests aircraft weapons systems and
works on flight test service.  He is an extremely organized, conscientious worker with a commendable4
work ethic.  Also, he is a union foreman representing 24 employees.5 6
Approximately six years ago, Applicant purchased an undeveloped tract of land in a rural area,
and built a home. At or about the same time, his neighbor purchased an adjacent tract and began
building a home. For three years, they coexisted peacefully.  Then, in approximately 2003, a property7
Tr.33.8
Tr. 46.9
Tr. 34.10
Tr. 32.11
Id.12
Exhibit 3, Indictment, dated April 1, 2004; Id.13
Id.., Tr. 39.14
Answer.15
Exhibit K.16
Tr. 49.17
3
dispute ensued over the proper location of a fence the neighbor sought to build. Subsequently, the
neighbor grew hostile, cursing at Applicant for the slightest trespass, such as any time grass clippings
from Applicant’s yard accidentally blew onto his yard. On multiple occasions, he threatened to kill
Applicant and his family if they walked onto the disputed property area.  Applicant contacted the8
local sheriff several times about the threats. The sheriff told him he could not take any action against
the neighbor unless he drove by their homes and observed him physically assaulting the Applicant.9
In an attempt to minimize conflict, Applicant enclosed his property with a wooden fence.10
Late one evening, someone on the neighbor’s property threw trash over the fence into his yard. The
next morning, while mowing the yard, Applicant threw the trash back over the fence into his
neighbor’s yard. The neighbor then confronted him, and they began arguing.  Subsequently, the11
neighbor climbed the fence, “hanging over [Applicant’s] fence into [Applicant’s] yard.”12
Fearing for his life, Applicant “discharged a pellet gun in the direction” of the neighbor,
hitting the fence.  He typically carried a pellet gun with him when he mowed the lawn because he13
would occasionally encounter snakes. The neighbor contacted the sheriff, who then arrested
Applicant. Later, he was indicted, and, after appearing before a grand jury, charged with deadly
conduct.14
Approximately five months later, as the result of a plea bargain, Applicant was granted
deferred adjudication for five years, placed concurrently on supervised probation, sentenced to one
month of work release, and ordered to perform 120 hours of community service.  The probation will15
expire in 2010.
Shortly after being sentenced, Applicant voluntarily enrolled in counseling that addressed, in
part, anger management issues.  Currently, he has completed 70 hours of community service. His16
tasks have included helping out at the local community civic center, working at a senior citizen’s
home, and working with the Salvation Army.17
Tr. 42.18
Exhibit Q.19
Id.20
Exhibit Q.21
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.22
4
Applicant initially met with a probation officer once per month after the sentence. Now, he
meets with him once every other month.  The probation officer characterized him as a “model18
probationer” and a “good candidate for early dismissal.”  He intends to recommend early dismissal19
once Applicant completes the remainder of the community service.  Moreover, he stated that he20
“understands [Applicant’s] job requires a security clearance and feels he would be no threat to your
company or any other company he may visit.”21
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 and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency
of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to
which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the
consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the
circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future.
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
consistent with the national interest.”   In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions22
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
5
Criminal Conduct
Under this guideline, “criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness.” Also, “[b]y its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness
to comply with laws, rules and regulations.” 
Here, Applicant was arrested and charged with deadly conduct charge after he fired a pellet
gun in the direction of his neighbor during the course of an argument. He is still serving probation
as a result of this offense. Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) 31(a), “a single
serious crime . . . ,” and CC DC 31(d), “individual is currently on parole or probation,” apply.
This is the only time Applicant has ever been charged with a crime. He is deeply remorseful,
has been performing community service, as ordered, and has a good employment record. Also, he
voluntarily enrolled in anger management counseling. Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC
MC) 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,” apply.
The mitigating conditions outweigh the disqualifying conditions. Although Applicant’s
conduct resulted in a criminal charge, he was never convicted. Also, in light of the probation officer’s
positive reference, the fact that he is still serving probation is not an indication that he cannot be
trusted with access to classified information. Applicant has mitigated the criminal conduct security
concern.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant’s conduct represents a serious lapse in judgment. It is mitigated by its isolated
nature. Other than this incident, Applicant has led a stable, productive life, serving in the Air Force,
finishing junior college with honors while holding three jobs, and currently serving as a union
foreman at his job. Also, the conduct is mitigated by its surrounding circumstances and Applicant’s
motivation for the conduct. Specifically, Applicant was fearing for his life when he fired his pellet
gun toward his neighbor. Given the neighbor’s history of death threats, and the fact that he was
climbing over Applicant’s fence when Applicant discharged the pellet gun, his fear was reasonable.
In addition to performing community service as ordered by the court, Applicant voluntarily
enrolled in counseling. His parole officer characterized him as a model probationer. Applicant’s
efforts at rehabilitation also weigh in his favor.
Upon evaluating this case in light of the whole person concept, I conclude that this conduct,
though serious, represents an anomaly, and poses neither the risk of recurring nor any potential for
coercion. Applicant has mitigated the criminal conduct security concern.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 - Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For 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.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge