1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 13-00784
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Circumstances underlying two domestic violence issues involving Applicant in
2003 and 2012 are no longer present and unlikely to recur. Also, Applicant neither
permitted nor condoned illegal drug use by his estranged wife and her stepdaughter
between 2009 and 2012. Changed circumstances and Applicant’s excellent record of
work over the past 28 years show his judgment and reliability do not undermine his
suitability for access to classified information. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On August 14, 2013, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators issued to
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These1
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
2
addressed in the adjudicative guidelines  for personal conduct (Guideline E). Applicant1
timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case was
assigned to me on October 23, 2013, and I convened a hearing on November 19, 2013.
Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 3, which were admitted
without objection. Applicant testified and proffered Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - D,
which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of hearing (Tr.) on
December 3, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline E, the Government alleged that Applicant’s second wife filed a
domestic violence with children injunction against him in March 2003, and that it was
dismissed in April 2003 (SOR 1.a); that in November 2012, Applicant was arrested and
charged with felony aggravated assault and with battery-domestic violence, the former
charge being dropped by the prosecutor, and the battery charge being dismissed later
for failure by the complaining party (Applicant’s third wife) to cooperate in the
prosecution (SOR 1.b); and that between April 2009 and November 2012, Applicant
lived with his third wife, who at times used marijuana, that Applicant held a security
clearance at the time, and that as of February 2013, Applicant and his wife were
attempting a reconciliation (SOR 1.c). Applicant admitted, with explanations, all of these
allegations. In addition to his admissions, I make the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is 51 years old. He has worked as an information technology
contractor in support of the space program for about 28 years. After working for most of
his career with large, nationally-known companies, he was hired in July 2002 by his
current employer, a small business that formerly acted as a subcontractor to his
previous employer. Applicant has held a security clearance throughout his career. His
access has never before been revoked or suspended. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 70 -
72)
Applicant has been married three times. His first marriage, from November 1986
until an October 1993 divorce, produced two children, one by adoption, now age 24 and
28. Applicant’s second marriage began in March 1996 and ended by divorce in
February 2008. Applicant and his third wife have been married since April 2009, but
they have been separated since November 2012. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 44 - 45)
Applicant did not have children with either his second or third wives. Both
marriages, however, blended children from prior relationships. In both marriages,
Applicant struggled with how or if he should discipline his stepchildren. He also felt his
own children, then teenagers still living at home, were treated unfairly by his second
wife. These factors caused friction in both marriages. On March 28, 2003, Applicant’s
second wife accused him of hitting her and obtained a temporary protective injunction
 All three marriages used the house Applicant has owned since 1986 as the marital residence. Applicant still2
resides there, albeit, by himself.
3
against him. No criminal charges were ever filed, and the injunction was vacated and
his wife’s complaint dismissed after a hearing on April 8, 2003. Applicant averred that
the case was dismissed because his second wife lied about what happened. (Answer;
Gx. 2; Ax. D; Tr. 34 - 38, 53)
Applicant’s third wife, whose avocation is performing as a karaoke singer several
nights each week, has an adult daughter. She, her daughter, and her daughter’s
boyfriend lived with Applicant in Applicant’s home.  From past experience in his second2
marriage, Applicant thought it best to rely on his wife to lay down rules and
responsibilities for her daughter and the boyfriend. However, over time Applicant
became frustrated because the unemployed stepdaughter and her unemployed
boyfriend were freeloading at Applicant’s expense, and that his wife was not doing
anything about it. Applicant suspected his stepdaughter was using marijuana and may
have been bringing it into his house. Applicant also became aware that his wife
occasionally used marijuana, possibly to manage pain from a bad back that was
recently corrected through surgery. More likely, she used marijuana if it was offered
when she was out at bars performing as a karaoke singer. Available information did not
establish that anyone used marijuana in the house or in Applicant’s presence. Applicant
has never used illegal drugs, and he testified that he had tried to make clear to his wife
and stepdaughter that such conduct was not acceptable, particularly because it might
impact his security clearance. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Tr. 35 - 42, 63)
On the evening of October 31, 2012, Applicant and his wife got into an argument
that culminated in Applicant’s arrest for aggravated domestic assault, a felony, and
domestic battery. Applicant called the police as the argument escalated and after finding
what he believed to be a tin his stepdaughter used for holding her marijuana. The
aggravated assault charge stemmed from his wife’s assertion that Applicant had
brandished a weapon at her and her daughter, causing Applicant’s wife to spray him in
the face with an aerosol substance. The weapon in question was a Daisy BB air rifle.
The aggravated assault charge was not validated or pursued by the local prosecutor.
Applicant’s wife also claimed in a written statement that he slapped and pushed her.
Applicant’s statement to police that evening, as well his statement to investigators
during his background investigation, his response to DOD interrogatories, and his
answer to the SOR, all cast his wife as the aggressor in the incident. Eventually, the
battery charge was also dismissed because Applicant’s wife refused to cooperate in the
prosecution. On July 13, 2013, Applicant, on his own initiative, successfully completed a
26-week domestic battery intervention course because he thought it would improve his
ability to resolve marital conflict. (Answer; Gx. 2; Ax. C; Tr. 54 - 63)
Applicant and his wife have been separated since November 1, 2012. Their
separation includes a court-issued no contact order. After a brief period to allow his wife
and stepdaughter to relocate, he moved back into his house. In late November 2012,
 See Directive. 6.3.3
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
4
Applicant’s wife petitioned the court to modify the no-contact order so she and Applicant
might reconcile. However, the petition was dismissed when his wife failed to appear in
court. Applicant and his wife remain separated, and he has indicated he is willing to get
back together, but only if she changes her behavior. (Answer; Tr. 64 - 70)
Applicant has an excellent reputation at work and in the community, the latter for
his volunteer work in youth athletics. Professionally, former co-workers and other
associates praise his professionalism, honesty, hard work, and integrity. He has held a
security clearance without incident for the past 28 years. He understands the need to
avoid improper conduct or circumstances that might reflect adversely on his reliability.
He routinely has been re-investigated several times and has not been hesitant to
disclose adverse information in his background so that the Government can accurately
assess his continued suitability for a clearance. (Answer; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 39 - 40, 70 -
72)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,3
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a)
of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those
factors are:
(1) 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
individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which 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 presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to4
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.5
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).6
5
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  5
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.6
Analysis
Personal Conduct
Available information shows that Applicant was involved in two domestic
disturbances, one in 2003 and another in 2012. Information that Applicant may have
been associated with persons involved with illegal drugs between 2009 and 2012 also
reasonably raised security concerns about his judgment and reliability. The concern
raised by this record is addressed at AG ¶ 15 as follows:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
More specifically, available information requires consideration of the following
pertinent AG ¶ 16 disqualifying conditions:
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a
whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard protected information;
6
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of (1) untrustworthy or unreliable
behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary
information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other
government protected information; (2) disruptive, violent, or other
inappropriate behavior in the workplace; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; (4)
evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer's time or resources;
and
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity. 
As to AG ¶¶ 16(c) and (d), the SOR 1.a and 1.b allegations fall short of actual
criminal conduct by Applicant because no criminal or civil culpability was established.
Nonetheless, these allegations suggest poor judgment by Applicant in his dealings with
two of his wives under difficult domestic circumstances. But the record does not
establish that Applicant actually struck his third wife in 2012, and it is silent about what
may have precipitated the petition for a domestic injunction in 2003. In both cases, there
was no criminal prosecution because there was no finding that Applicant acted as
alleged. 
This record does not provide any additional information to show that he acted
improperly. To the contrary, as to SOR 1.b, aside from calling the police incident to the
domestic disturbance occurring at his home, he called them to report his stepdaughter’s
drug involvement. Both domestic incidents likely stemmed from poor behavior by both
husband and wife. There is no indication Applicant has lied about or tried to conceal
anything adverse in his background, or that he has been unwilling to comply with rules
or regulations. There is also no indication he has been violent or disruptive in the
workplace, that he has misused Government resources, or that he is dishonest. The
facts underlying these incidents do not support application of either AG ¶ 16(c) or AG ¶
16(d).
As to AG ¶ 16(g), the allegation at SOR 1.c implies that Applicant knew about,
was involved with, or condoned his third wife’s drug use when they married in 2009. To
the contrary, the record shows he came to that knowledge later in the marriage, and
that he did what could reasonably be expected of him to correct the situation. However,
he was dealing with poorly-behaved adults who likely were not inclined to care their
conduct was placing his security clearance in jeopardy. It is perfectly understandable,
given the experience of his second marriage, that he would defer to his wife in dealing
7
with his stepdaughter and the boyfriend. Her failure to act responsibly was not
Applicant’s fault.
Applicant’s third wife and her daughter are no longer living with Applicant. As to
the Government’s concern that Applicant and his wife were attempting reconciliation,
available information shows that Applicant’s wife filed, but quickly abandoned a petition
to modify a no-contact order shortly after they separated. Applicant has not attempted
reconciliation, but he is amenable to it only if his wife changes her behavior. I have
considered the AG ¶ 17 mitigating conditions and conclude that AG ¶ 17 (f) (association
with persons involved in criminal activities has ceased or occurs under circumstances
that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or
willingness to comply with rules and regulations) applies and is sufficient to mitigate the
Government’s concerns about Applicant’s personal conduct.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guideline E. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of the
whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 51 years old and presumed to be a
mature, responsible adult. His uneventful access to classified information for 28 years,
and his good reputation in the workplace and community support that presumption. The
Government’s concerns about his two domestic incidents, and about the possible
presence of illegal activity in his household are reasonable. However, those incidents do
not constitute a pattern of poor behavior. They occurred ten years apart and it has not
been substantiated that he initiated any improper conduct either time. These were
unfortunate incidents that sometimes occur in married life. Applicant remains estranged
from his third wife, and it is unlikely they will reconcile if she does not alter her behavior
regarding illegal drugs. A commonsense assessment of the entire record shows that the
security concerns raised by this record are mitigated. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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 E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: For Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is granted.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge