1 
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 17-02466 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gatha Manns, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I find that Applicant 
mitigated personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified 
information is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on March 20, 2015, to retain a security clearance required for her duties with a 
defense contractor. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns for personal conduct (Guideline E) on 
August 17, 2017. The SOR alleges that Applicant’s association with her husband who 
has an extensive criminal record raises a personal conduct security concern. The action 
was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, 
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective in the DOD on June 
8, 2017.  
 
2 
 
Applicant provided a detailed answer to the SOR on September 11, 2017. She 
admitted part and denied part of the allegation. Department Counsel was prepared to 
proceed on December 18, 2017. Another administrative judge was assigned the case 
on May, 18, 2018, and she sent a Notice of Hearing on June 26, 2018, for a hearing on 
July 31, 2018. I was assigned the case on June 26, 2018, because of the unavailability 
of the original judge. I convened the case as scheduled on July 31, 2018. The 
Government introduced three exhibits I marked and admitted into the record without 
objection as Government Exhibits (GX) 1, 2, and 3. Applicant and one witness testified. 
Applicant introduced seven exhibits which I marked and admitted into the record without 
objection as Applicant Exhibits (AX) A through G. DOHA received the transcript of the 
hearing on August 8, 2018.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make 
additional findings of fact. Applicant is 47 years old. She has a Master’s Degree in 
Business Administration and a Master’s degree in Procurement and Acquisition. She 
has been an acquisition specialist for various defense contractors since February 2007. 
She had a period of unemployment from April 2005 until January 2007. Her 
performance appraisals in her present job are excellent. Her present salary is 
approximately $120,000 per year. She also has two part-time employments, as a care 
giver for a home nursing company, and also as a receptionist at a retirement home. 
Applicant married in January 1992, and has been married for 26 years. She has one 
adult daughter who lives with her. Applicant supports her daughter while she is in 
school. (Tr. 9-11, 29-33; GX 1, e-QIP, dated March 20, 2015; AX B, Resume; AX C, 
Personal Biography; AX D, Higher Education Awards and Transcripts; AX E, 
Performance Reviews; AX F, Family Photographs) 
 
The SOR alleges a personal conduct security concern based on Applicant’s 
association with her husband who has a history of criminal activity. The SOR alleges 
that this association shows that she has questionable judgment creating a security risk. 
Criminal history records for Applicant’s husband shows he has been incarcerated for 
various lengths of time in at least four state prisons and in federal prisons for felony 
larceny, theft, breaking and entering, and forgery. (GX 3, Criminal Records)  
 
Applicant acknowledges that her husband has a history of criminal activity. When 
Applicant married him in January 1992, he already had a criminal record. Applicant did 
not know about his prior criminal conduct. She knew he was in trouble for something, 
but she did not know the details. She was 19 years old and her husband was 30 years 
old at the time, and she was not mature enough to inquiry further into his criminal 
history. She asked questions about his past but accepted the information he provided 
her. When her husband was first arrested, she was a high school student and did not 
know him. She knew him only a few months before they married. She thought the 
offense he committed before they married was a minor traffic violation. He was 
incarcerated for a few weeks before they married. She did not inquire about the offense 
that caused him to be confined. Her husband was convicted of a fraud offense shortly 
3 
 
after they married. She did not inquire about that offense or terminate the marriage. Her 
husband was also convicted of the offense of breaking and entering about two years 
after they married. Applicant continued to live with her parents while her husband was 
incarcerated. Her daughter was born in 1996. Applicant rented an apartment in her own 
name in 2000. After his release from incarceration, her husband lived with Applicant and 
their daughter. Applicant was trying to make the marriage work. As of August 14, 2017, 
for a variety of reasons to include her husband’s criminal record, Applicant always used 
her maiden name and never used her husband’s family name. (Tr. 35-48) 
 
Applicant’ husband continued to commit offenses and be incarcerated. He spent 
more time incarcerated during their marriage than out of prison. Most of his crimes were 
to obtain money to purchase drugs. When out of prison, his occupations are barbering, 
working construction, or writing books. On her July 16, 2010 e-QIP (GX 2), Applicant 
reported that from March 2007, she was physically separated for four years from her 
husband while he was incarcerated in a federal correctional institution (FCI) in Texas. 
She also noted that she had no contact with him for approximately 18 months before his 
incarceration. She also reported having little if any contact with her husband’s family, 
maybe three phone calls in four or five years. On her March 20, 2015 e-QIP (GX1), 
Applicant listed her husband’s current address as a state penitentiary. When her 
husband is released from his present incarceration, Applicant’s state has a retainer 
bond for his continued incarceration in that state. (Tr. 48-49, 57-58) 
 
Applicant does not know how much her employer knows of her husband’s 
criminal past. She believes she let her security officer know about her husband’s 
criminal conduct when she completed the e-QIP and she listed his location as either a 
FCI or a penitentiary. Applicant and her husband separated over four years ago, and he 
has been incarcerated for the last three years. She has minimal contact with him. 
Sometimes she does not hear from him for months. She provides him minimal financial 
support, maybe $50 every six months. In at least the last over three years he has been 
incarcerated, she has not visited him. (Tr. 48-54)  
 
Applicant is a very religious person and does not believe in divorce. She thought 
her husband’s behavior would change and he would become more of a family man. He 
did change for a short period but he would return to his criminal activities. Applicant 
talked to her pastor and members of her church and determined that she can divorce 
her husband within the rules of her church. Applicant initially retained a lawyer to 
represent her and file a divorce. Her husband would not agree, and made demands that 
she could not afford. She could not afford to proceed with the divorce until she saved 
additional funds. She plans to proceed with the divorce as soon as she can. 
 
She earns her own money and pays her bills. Life is more peaceful when her 
husband is not around so she will not let him back into her life. She plans to divorce him 
as soon as she saves sufficient funds to pay her attorney and make any payments she 
is required to make to her husband. She had patience with his criminal conduct 
believing he would reform, but she has lost patience and does not feel he will reform. 
4 
 
She will not allow him to come back to her house when he is released from any 
confinement. (Tr. 33-37, 54-60; AX G, e-mail, dated July 3, 2018)  
 
A friend and fellow student with Applicant testified that she served seven years in 
the U.S. Army as a sergeant (E-5), and has held a high level security clearance for over 
20 years. She knows Applicant’s security clearance is being challenged because of her 
husband’s criminal conduct. She has known Applicant as a co-worker and fellow 
student for over nine years. Applicant is a committed, hard-working, helpful person who 
is striving to get to the next level in her life. Applicant is a religious woman. At 
Applicant’s invitation, the witness attended some of Applicant’s group church meetings. 
She met Applicant’s husband and knows that Applicant cannot be manipulated by her 
husband. Applicant has blossomed and taken charge of her life. She can make the hard 
decisions pertaining to her relationship with her husband. The witness recommends that 
Applicant retain her access to classified information. (Tr. 15-26) 
 
Applicant presented six letters of recommendation from fellow workers and 
friends. Some friends have known Applicant her entire life. Applicant is characterized by 
them as honest, trustworthy, loyal, supportive, and positive. They note that Applicant 
completed two master’s degrees, raised her daughter as a single mother, and 
purchased a house. Applicant is a caring and compassionate person who believes in 
fairness and always strives to do the right thing. She tries to find the positive in people, 
and encourage them to be better in their lives. (AX A)  
  
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the Administrative Guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not 
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these 
guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 
The administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and 
common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious 
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The 
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, 
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security 
eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I 
have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the 
evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
5 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by department counsel. . .” The 
applicant has the burden of persuasion to obtaining a favorable security decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 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 and sensitive 
information. Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks whether the 
person’s past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly 
safeguard classified or sensitive information. (AG ¶ 15). 
 Applicant’s association with her husband, who has a lengthy criminal record, 
raises the following disqualifying conditions under AG ¶16: 
(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 individual may not 
properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; and  
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity.  
 I considered the following Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶17: 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is 
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment;  
6 
 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling 
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressor, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or other appropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to 
recur; and 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; and 
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, 
has ceased, or occurred under circumstance that do not cast doubt on the 
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply 
with rules and regulations. 
 The mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has been married to her husband, who 
has a lengthy and ongoing criminal record, for over 26 years. Applicant has an excellent 
record and reputation for her individual accomplishments; two master’s degrees, a good 
work performance, and a clean record. She married her husband when she was young 
and she did not know of his criminal past. She has been separated, and is now 
separated from her husband, for most of their marriage because of his time in prison. 
She had little if any contact with him for the last four years. Applicant’s relationship and 
limited contacts with her husband, are appropriate under the circumstances, and does 
not indicate questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to 
comply with rules or regulations.  
 Applicant made a reasonable effort to advise her employer of her husband’s 
criminal conduct. In the 2010 e-QIP, she reported that her husband’s present address 
was a federal correctional institute in Texas. In her 2015 e-QIP, she listed his present 
address as a state penitentiary. This information puts both the employer and 
government on notice that her husband has a criminal background. I find that Applicant 
adequately informed her employer of her husband’s criminal conduct.   
Applicant is a religious women who does not agree with divorce but believes in 
trying to make the marriage work in spite of her husband’s criminal record. In spite of 
her religious believes, she obtained counseling from her church and changed her views 
to permit her to file for divorce. She has taken positive steps by contacting an attorney 
and attempting to end the marriage. She established that she is unable to meet her 
husband’s financial requests, so she is saving money to permit her to file the divorce 
papers. She has taken positive steps to eliminate vulnerability, exploitation, or 
manipulation by not permitting her husband to return to her house after his release from 
incarceration and being prepared to file for a divorce as soon as she can afford it. 
Applicant has mitigated the personal conduct security concern.     
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the 
7 
 
applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should 
consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): 
  
(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. 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for 
access to classified information must be an overall common-sense judgment based 
upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
 
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s over ten 
years of working for defense contractors. The evidence shows that Applicant has been 
faithful to her marriage vows in spite of her husband’s criminal record. Applicant 
established that her association with her husband does not show questionable 
judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations, or other characteristics to indicate that he may not properly safeguard 
classified or sensitive information. The facts in evidence mitigate any questions and 
doubts about Applicant’s judgment and her suitability for access to classified 
information. I conclude that Applicant mitigated personal conduct security concerns. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant 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 
 
 Subparagraph 1.a:    For Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge