DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-07902
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                        February 14, 2017                     
           
______________
Decision
______________
JUDGE, Martin H. Mogul, Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86
Format) on May 18, 2015. On March 5, 2016, after reviewing the application and
information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense
Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, sent Applicant a statement
of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.  The SOR1
detailed the factual reasons for the action under the Security Guideline J for Criminal
Conduct and Guideline E for Personal Conduct considerations. Applicant timely
answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
  This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry,1
signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992,
as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The
AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG
replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to September 1, 2006, and a copy of these
guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.    
1
The case was assigned to me on June 13, 2016. The hearing was held as
scheduled on July 20, 2016. On November 23, 2016, I proposed to the parties by email
that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.
Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and no notice was received to
indicate that Department Counsel objected. 
Applicant is a 27 year old high school graduate, who is unmarried and has no
children. Applicant has done maintenance for the United States Navy since September
2014.  The allegation concerning Guideline J was that in April 2014, Applicant knowingly
traveled from Mexico to the United States, with a Mexican citizen, and it was his intent
to assist the Mexican citizen to enter the United States illegally. The allegation
concerning Guideline E was that the information alleged under Guideline J also exhibits
conduct that involves questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. Based on the record evidence as a
whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish
the facts alleged in the SOR under Guidelines J and E. 
I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain,
extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department
Counsel. I considered that Applicant testified that he was in Tijuana, Mexico, visiting his
parents, and his friend in Tijuana asked him to help her transport her uncle to the United
States; he had not planned it ahead of time. Applicant admitted he made a mistake to
transport the uncle from Tijuana to the United States. On the approach to the border,
Applicant decided he should not have done this, but he could not turn around before he
reached the border. Applicant was stopped at the border and held for a few hours
before being released. Applicant revealed this conduct on his security clearance
application. At the hearing, he expressed credible, sincere remorse for this past one-
time conduct, and his intent to never engage in such conduct in the future. I conclude
that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions under
Guideline J: AG ¶ 32(a) and (d); and under Guideline E: AG ¶ 17(c) and (g). 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of criminal conduct do not create doubt
about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect
classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole
and considered whether or not the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable
evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I
conclude that Applicant has met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified
information. This case is decided for Applicant. 
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge 
2