Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-8, and hearing exhibit (HE I).1
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                        
    
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ISCR Case No. 15–01891
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I grant Applicant’s clearance.1
On 2 November 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline E, Personal
Conduct.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the Defense2
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 7 June 2016
and I convened a hearing 22 August 2016. DOHA received the transcript 29 August
2016.
Applicant was at a bar when a fight broke out amongst other patrons. The police ordered everybody in the3
bar to leave. Applicant was charged with trespassing after warning when he kept insisting that he and his
friends were not involved in the fight (Tr. 24-26).
Applicant drank too much at a bar. Not wanting to drive home intoxicated, Applicant asked a nearby police4
officer to summon a cab for him, which the officer did. However, when the Applicant discovered—after the cab
ride had begun—that the cabby expected to charge $90 for a 10-mile ride, Applicant stopped the cab. The
cabby called the police officer to the scene. After Applicant paid $10 for the ride he had taken to that point,
he was arrested because the police officer would not let him sleep it off in his car, and would not let Applicant
call another cab (Tr. 29-32).
Applicant was also charged with failure to provide proof of insurance, a charge which the court dismissed.5
The record does not reflect if Applicant was fired over just the March and April 2009 arrests, or for the 20076
incidents as well.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 33-year-old computer
infrastructure architect employed by a defense contractor since November 2010. He has
been employed continuously in similar jobs since May 2005, except for a period of
unemployment from June-August 2009. He has not previously held a clearance.
Applicant was born in Nigeria, and immigrated to the United States (U.S.). in
June 2001. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in January 2009, and obtained his
U.S. passport in August 2012. He is married and has two sons, ages two and four.
Between July 2007 and June 2015, Applicant had a variety of run-ins with law
enforcement, resulting in very little punishment. In January 2007, Applicant was charged
with trespassing after warning (SOR 1.a).   In August 2007, a warrant was issued when3
Applicant failed to appear at his scheduled hearing (SOR 1.b). However, in January
2008, Applicant appeared at his hearing and the case was nolle prosse (GE 2, 3). In
March 2009, Applicant was charged with unknowingly operating a vehicle with a
suspended, canceled, or revoked driver’s license (SOR 1.c)(my emphasis). Applicant
apparently paid a fine, but did not appear for two scheduled hearings. No warrants were
issued. Nevertheless, Applicant appeared for a hearing in March 2010, and the charge
was dismissed (GE 2).
In April 2009, Applicant was charged with disorderly intoxication in a public place
that caused a disturbance (SOR 1.d).  In June 2009, Applicant pled nolo contendere on4
the advice of counsel, and adjudication of the case was withheld (GE 2). In May 2009,
Applicant was charged with operating a vehicle with a suspended, canceled or revoked
driver’s license (SOR 1.f).  However, in June 2009, the case was nolle prosse (GE 5).5
Also in May 2009, Applicant was discharged by his employer for failing to report his
arrests (SOR 1.e),  a requirement Applicant claimed to be unaware of until the day he6
was fired (Tr. 32-33).
Applicant and his wife got into an argument, which devolved into mutual hitting, with Applicant’s wife starting7
the physical confrontations.
Specifically, Applicant was found to have paid his fees and associated costs as required, and to have8
maintained his employment as required. He was found to have failed to meet with his probation supervisor
as required, which was true because Applicant’s company had assigned him to a contract located out of state.
He was also found to have left the state without his probation supervisor’s permission. It appears to have not
mattered that Applicant maintained telephone contact with his probation supervisor. It also appears to have
not mattered that Applicant informed his probation supervisor that he was being assigned to a job out of state.
Apparently, he was supposed to have obtained written permission to leave the state, a requirement which
appears nowhere on any of the court orders or related documents provided to Applicant by the state.
Moreover, Applicant had previously been given telephonic permission to go to a job out of state, albeit just
across the state line from Applicant’s home.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the judge’s findings, which was denied. Applicant appealed the judge’s9
ruling, which appeal is currently pending (Answer; Tr. 43).
3
In July 2012, Applicant got into an argument with his girlfriend. The police were
called, but no arrests were made. On 29 July 2012, the girlfriend sought an interim
protective order. On 31 July 2012 and 7 August 2012, temporary protective orders were
issued (SOR 1.g). On 17 August 2012, a final order dismissing the protective order was
issued when the petitioner requested dismissal (GE 6).
In March 2014, Applicant was charged with second degree assault on his wife
(previously his girlfriend)(SOR 1.h).  In December 2014, Applicant was awarded7
supervised probation before judgment. In June 2015, a bench warrant was issued
alleging that Applicant had violated the terms of his probation (SOR 1.i). On 7 August
2015, Applicant was found to be in violation of some, but not all, of the terms of
probation originally alleged.  His probation was terminated unsatisfactorily, with the only8
additional consequence being sentenced to three days in jail, with credit for time
previously served (GE 7).9
Applicant has undertaken driver improvement programs, domestic violence
counseling, and relationship counseling with his wife. The driving-related incidents (SOR
1.a-1.e) all occurred when Applicant was much younger, at a time when he admits he
was immature, and have not recurred in over seven years. The more recent incidents
involve relationship issues that Applicant and his wife continue to address (Tr. 53).
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).10
¶16 (d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be11
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 included but is not limited to consideration of: . . . (3)
a pattern of . . . rule violations.
¶17 (c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened12
under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
¶17 (d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or13
taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy,
unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; 
4
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their 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.10
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, but
Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Applicant had several encounters with law
enforcement between July 2007 and June 2015.  However, those encounters resulted11
in little or no punishment, some indication of what the judicial system thought of the
seriousness of the offenses.
The appropriate mitigating conditions encompass the fact that the judicial system
took comparatively minor action against Applicant,  and Applicant (and his wife) have12
undertaken a variety of counseling to improve their relationship.  Most of the13
questionable behavior occurred while Applicant lived in another state (SOR 1.a-1.f), and
the two most serious of those incidents consist largely of violating the unwritten rule that
5
thou shalt not vex the police. The more recent incidents (SOR 1.g.-1.i) involve domestic
arguments with his girlfriend/wife that they have addressed through counseling. Under
the circumstances, I consider Applicant’s behavior unlikely to recur. Accordingly, I
resolve Guideline E for Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-i:                                For Applicant
Conclusion
Under 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 granted. 
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge