KEYWORD: Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged finding is consistent with the record viewed in its entirety. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-03025.a1
DATE: 01/06/2012
DATE: January 6, 2012
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-03025
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Donald H. Sheffy, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 13, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On October 21, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that
Applicant’s case raised security concerns; whether the Judge failed to consider all of the record
evidence; and whether the Judge failed in his application of the mitigating conditions.  Consistent
with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision. 
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant, a veteran of the U.S.
Marine Corps, works as a computer technician for a Defense contractor.  He is considered an
outstanding employee.
Applicant has been married since 2001.  He and his wife have a troubled relationship,
repeatedly separating and reconciling.  They have been together for only two months since 2006.
In December 2005, Applicant was arrested and charged with second degree assault after a domestic
dispute.  Applicant’s wife declined to testify against him, and the court dismissed the charge.  He
voluntarily attended counseling from 2006 to 2008 in order to obtain help in dealing with his marital
issues.  He and his wife attended counseling together, but they stopped after three or four sessions.
In 2010, Applicant’s wife informed him she was throwing him out of the house.  He left
work to go home and collect his things.  “What happened next is inconclusive” (Decision at 2), but
Applicant’s wife was injured.  Applicant did not corroborate his claim that he had tripped over the
curb and had fallen into her, knocking her down.  Applicant’s wife called the police, who arrested
Applicant for second degree assault.  Applicant’s wife went to an emergency room, where she was
diagnosed with bleeding on the brain.
Applicant received probation before judgment.  He was required to meet with a probation
officer and attend anger management classes.  He was ordered to pay his wife $9,082 in restitution
in $500 increments.  However, he fell into arrears, and was subsequently arrested for failing to make
restitution payments.  He attended the required anger management classes, though the program
administrator concluded that Applicant showed little improvement during the course.  The court
terminated the probation order in July 2011.
Applicant’s wife is mentally unstable and has been hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital on
at least two occasions.  
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s arrests and the circumstances underlying them raised
security concerns under Guideline J.  He described Applicant as a “stellar employee” and cited to
evidence that Applicant’s wife instigated one or both of the incidents of domestic violence alleged
in the SOR.  However, he concluded that, given the couple’s history of reconciliation, Applicant had
3
not demonstrated sufficient effort to avoid situations in which domestic violence could occur.  He
also noted that Applicant’s last arrest occurred fairly recently and that the results of Applicant’s
anger management class were ambiguous.  All in all, he concluded that Applicant had not mitigated
the security concerns in his case.
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that the evidence raised security
concerns under Guideline J.  He noted that Applicant had not been convicted of any offense and that
there was no evidence that Applicant had actually committed misconduct.
When an applicant denies an allegation in a SOR, the Government must present substantial
evidence in support of the allegation.  Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See ISCR Case No. 10-03426 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jul. 15, 2011).  In this case, Applicant admitted the allegations concerning the 2005 domestic
violence arrest and the later one for failure to pay restitution.  Therefore, the Government had no
requirement to provide evidence of them.  
However, he denied the allegation concerning the 2010 assault.  The evidence supporting
this allegation consists of Applicant’s description of the incident, in which he admits having caused
his wife to fall and suffer a brain hemorrhage.  The Judge found that Applicant’s claim as to the
accidental nature of this incident was not corroborated.  This finding is consistent with the record,
viewed in its entirety.  Although there is no judgment in this case, evidence of the legal
consequences of this act, including a requirement for Applicant to pay restitution, be placed on
probation, and to attend anger management classes (Applicant Exhibit H describes this an “Abuser
Intervention Program”), support a conclusion that he engaged in wrongful conduct.  
The record evidence viewed as a whole supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s
circumstances constitute substantial evidence of security concerns under Guideline J.  The fact that
criminal charges have been dropped or dismissed does not preclude a finding that the charges raise
security concerns.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-02299 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 12, 2010).  
Applicant cites to his employment record and to his military service.  We construe this as
an argument that the Judge failed to consider this evidence or that he mis-weighed it.  However, the
Judge made findings concerning these matters and addressed his work record in the Analysis.
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-06436 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2011).  Neither has he demonstrated that
the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. 
 The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that
a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
4
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.”
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                 
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board