1
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 17-00191 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny his eligibility 
for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant pled guilty to a 
misdemeanor offense of pointing a weapon at others and received a three year deferred 
sentence. He has mitigated the criminal conduct and personal conduct security 
concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
Statement of the Case 
On May 9, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct, and Guideline E, personal conduct, and 
explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to 
grant or continue security clearance eligibility for him.1  
1 The DoD CAF took the action under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines 
04/02/2019
 
2 
On May 30, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR allegations and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA). On February 7, 2018, DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling a 
hearing that was conducted on February 28, 2018.  
 
Five Government exhibits (Ex. 1-5) and five Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-E) were 
admitted into evidence without objection. Records submitted by Applicant as 
attachments to his answer were considered. Applicant testified, as reflected in a 
transcript (Tr.) received on March 9, 2018. I held the record open after the hearing for 
Applicant to submit additional documents. Following the hearing, the Order of Dismissal 
was admitted as Ex. F. 
 
While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence 
issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing the National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or 
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), which he made applicable to all covered 
individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information 
or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs 
and are effective “for all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I 
have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new AGs.2 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted a felony arrest for Pointing of a 
Firearm (SOR 1.a), which was also alleged under the personal conduct guideline. After 
a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is a 56-year-old flight engineer and project manager who has worked 
for a defense contractor since August 2000 and seeks to retain his security clearance. 
(Ex. 1, Ex. E, Tr. 20) From September 1981 through September 1985, he honorably 
served in the U.S. Air Force. (Ex. 1, Tr. 22) He had no overseas deployments when on 
active duty, but spent three and a half years in Saudi Arabia with his contractor job. (Tr. 
24) He has been married 26 years and has no children. (Ex.1, Tr. 24) 
 
On January 29, 2015, Applicant was arrested for felony pointing of a firearm. (Ex. 
5, Ex. A) That evening, his sleep was interrupted by his neighbor’s four barking dogs. 
(Ex. B) Applicant lives in a gated community of 100 homes all on one-and-a-half acre 
lots. (Tr. 27) There was a history of complaints about the barking dogs. The dogs’ 
barking was loud enough to disturb one neighbor, not the Applicant, who lived six 
hundred feet away and the noise was separated from his residence by a heavily 
wooded yard. (Ex. B) The complaint dogs’ owner put threatening notes on people’s 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DoD on September 
1, 2006. 
 
2 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision 
in this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf. 
  
 
3 
doors when a different neighbor complained about the barking. (Tr. 28) When 
Applicant’s next-door neighbors complained to the dogs’ owner about the noise, the 
dogs’ owner dropped off a box fan at the complaining neighbor’s home and said he 
heard “white noise” helps to reduce the sound of barking dogs. (Tr. 28)  
 
Since 2012, the police had responded four times from complaints from the 
neighbors about the barking dogs. (Ex. 6) The barking dogs had resulted in Applicant’s 
neighbor being ticketed for disturbing the peace. (Ex. B)The Applicant’s neighbor had 
gone to court to respond to a complaint over his barking dogs and was fined by the city. 
(Tr. 28) As a result the owner frequently placed two of the dogs in a heated warehouse 
near the house. (Ex. 6, Ex. B) The move failed to end the barking. (Ex. 6, Ex. B) 
 
The back of Applicant’s property fronts onto the dog owner’s property. (Tr. 29) 
On a previous occasion when Applicant’s neighbor’s dogs were constantly barking, 
Applicant called the police and was told the police would respond to loud party noise but 
do not respond to animal disturbances. (Tr. 28) He was told that he would have to wait 
until the next morning to call animal control. (Tr. 28) Applicant stated the dogs would 
bark every two seconds for as long as eight hours straight. (Tr. 28)  
 
On January 29, 2015, at 8:20 pm, the dogs started barking. (Tr. 29) Applicant 
went to the dog owner’s home initially to leave a note complaining about the barking 
dogs. At that time, he did not know if anyone was home at the dog owner’s home3. 
When the owner answered the door, Applicant angrily complained that the neighbor’s 
dogs had kept Applicant awake the previous night. (Ex. 5) The owner initially said this 
was the first time the dogs were barking, but later acknowledged he had failed to put the 
dogs in the barn the previous night. (Ex. B, Tr. 31) When Applicant challenged the 
owner about being fined after being taken to court over the dogs’ barking, the owner 
became upset. (Tr. 31)  
 
After Applicant stated his complaint, he returned to his car. At that time the dogs’ 
owner followed him to his car. Both individuals were swearing. Applicant got into his car 
when the dogs’ owner struck the hood of Applicant’s car three times and dented the 
hood of Applicant’s car. (Ex. 6, Tr. 17, Tr. 33)  
 
The individual’s front house light was not working and the only light came from 
Applicant’s car head lights. (Ex. 5, Ex. A, Tr. 16) At that time the neighbor had 
something metallic in his hand, which turned out to be a cell phone. But in the dark, 
Applicant could only identify it as metallic. (Tr. 16) Applicant got out of his car as his 
neighbor continued to approach him. Thinking the neighbor to be armed, as his 
neighbor approached, Applicant drew a handgun and pointed it at his neighbor yelling 
for him to stop. Applicant has a concealed carry permit and says he drew his firearm out 
of self-defense. (Ex. 6) After exchanging additional words, Applicant got back in his car, 
                                                          
3 Applicant stated that in his neighborhood individuals work nights or are sometime gone for multiple days due to 
their jobs so he did not know if the dog owner was home. (Tr. 30)  
 
 
4 
drove home, and called the police. (Ex. 6) Three hours prior to the incident, Applicant 
had a glass of wine with dinner. (Tr. 19)  
 
The dogs’ owner said he followed Applicant to his car to make sure Applicant left. 
(Ex. 6) The dog owner says he messed up when he struck Applicant’s vehicle, at which 
time Applicant got out of his car. (Ex. 6) The dog owner told police he would have put 
his dogs in the barn had Applicant asked. (Ex. 6) As Applicant was leaving, he said he 
was going to call 911 and the dogs’ owner said it would be a race to see who called 
first. The neighbor asked his wife to call 9-1-1 when he entered his home and to get his 
weapon. (Ex. B) Applicant called 911 when he got home, told the police about the 
incident, said he had drawn his weapon, and gave the police his address. (Tr. 33) He 
was arrested that night and the gun confiscated. The gun was never returned to 
Applicant. (Tr. 39) His concealed carry permit was returned to the issuing authority. (Tr. 
50)  
 
After the incident, the barking stopped. (Tr. 41) The dogs were rescue dogs and 
after the newspaper article and television news about the incident, the dog rescue came 
and took the dogs from the home. (Tr. 41) Since the incident, Applicant has had no 
interaction with the dogs’ owner. (Tr. 41)  
 
The district attorney (DA) assigned to the case said he would drop the charges if 
Applicant wrote a letter of apology to the dogs’ owner. (Tr. 36) Applicant refused to do 
so. The DA also suggested Applicant consider anger management or counseling. 
Applicant said he would go only if the dog owner also went. (Tr. 40) Two years later, a 
different district attorney was handling the matter. Applicant initially paid his attorney 
$4,000 and was informed that an additional $8,000 would be required to take the matter 
to a jury trial, for a total of $12,000. (Tr. 9, SOR Response) The potential cost was a 
factor in deciding to accept the district attorney’s offer of a guilty plea to a misdemeanor. 
Also a weighing factor was the stress the matter had caused Applicant and his wife. (Tr. 
36) When the plea was made, it had already cost him $7,0004. (Tr. 14, Tr. 36)  
 
On November 23, 2016, Applicant, after pleading guilty to the misdemeanor of 
pointing a weapon at others, he was order to pay a $50 fine, a $50 Victim's 
Compensation Assessment (VCT), and $83 in court costs. His finding of guilty was 
deferred for three years. (Ex. 4) He was required to complete one year of supervised 
probation5 and two additional years of unsupervised probation. (Tr. 37) None of the 
court documents present in the record indicate a community service requirement. After 
                                                          
4 In addition to the $4,000 attorney’s fees, Applicant paid $50 for warrant of arrest, $25 for court 
information system revolving fund, $75 bond fee to the court (the bondsman’s fee for the $4,000 bond is 
not part of the record), and $200 in additional court fees and assessments. (Ex. 4) The bond was 
decreased at arraignment. (Ex. 4) Applicant’s cost between these fees, assessments, and costs and the 
$7,000 claimed by Applicant is not part of the record. 
  
5 Even though there was one year of supervised probation, Applicant never saw the probation officer. 
Within a week of his plea, he called the probation officer and was told he did not have to come in to the 
probation office and that he should keep the probation officer informed if he moved, changed 
employment, or if his telephone number changed.  
 
5 
completing the deferred sentence, Applicant’s record would be expunged. (Tr. 14) 
When Applicant made the decision to plead guilty to the misdemeanor, he had no idea 
that doing so would have affected his security clearance. (Tr. 14) 
 
As of February 2018, Applicant had completed 130 hours of community service 
at a non-profit organization that helped neglected, abused, and homeless dogs. (Ex. D) 
The president and founder of the organization stated Applicant was very hard working 
and a dedicated volunteer who always put in the best possible effort. (Ex. D) In May 
2018, Applicant had met all the conditions regarding the supervised probation and 
community service, and having served more than half of the probationary period, 
formally requested early termination of his unsupervised probation.  
 
In January 2019, Applicant dismissed his original attorney and hired a new 
attorney, at a cost of an additional $4,000, in an attempt to terminate the unsupervised 
probation early. On March 22, 2019, the Motion to Accelerate Deferred Sentence and 
Dismiss Case was sustained. (Ex. V) On March 22, 2019, an Order of Dismissal was 
signed, which ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the case against him be dismissed. 
Now that the deferred sentence has been successfully completed, his record will be 
expunged. 
 
Applicant realizes he acted inappropriately and wishes he had never gone to the 
dogs’ owner’s home. The frustration due to lack of sleep and the police not responding 
to barking dogs contributed to his inappropriate actions. (Tr. 42) He makes no excuses 
for his actions. His intent was to leave a note and when he saw the dogs’ owner was 
home, it was his intent to tell him to quiet his dogs, and then he intended to leave. (Tr. 
42) Obviously, it did not work out as planned. 
 
The senior logistics manager for the DoD contractor was Applicant’s supervisor 
for two and a half years, and he described Applicant as a very dedicated, detailed, and 
passionate about the work he performs on aircraft upgrades. (Ex. E) He stated 
Applicant has strong morals that drive his decisions and highly recommends Applicant. 
(Ex. E) The project manager stated Applicant was one of the better project management 
specialists in the company. (Ex. E) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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 overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
 
6 
2(a), the adjudication process is an examination of a sufficient period and a careful 
weight of a number of variables of an individual’s life to make an affirmative 
determination that the individual is an acceptable security risk. This is known as the 
whole-person concept.  
 
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.  
 
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 ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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 safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of 
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination of the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline J: Criminal Conduct 
 
 The security concern about criminal conduct is articulated in AG ¶ 30: 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability 
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
 
AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable:  
 
 
7 
(a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be 
unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in 
combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or 
trustworthiness; and  
  
(b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an 
admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of 
whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted.  
 
 In January 2015, Applicant was charged with carrying a firearm while under the 
influence and felony pointing a firearm. He pled no contest to a reduced misdemeanor 
charge and received a deferred disposition. He was placed on probation for three years 
until November 2019. The disqualifying conditions in AG ¶ 31 (a) applies. AG ¶ 31(b) 
does not apply because there is no “pattern” of offenses—he committed one offense. 
 
 AG ¶ 31(c), “individual is currently on parole or probation,” was applicable as of 
the issuance of the SOR in May 2017 because Applicant was then on unsupervised 
probation. It no longer applies because he successfully petitioned for an Order of 
Dismissal. He made a motion to accelerate the deferred sentence and dismiss his case. 
On March 22, 2019, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the case against him be 
dismissed.  
 
 Applicant has the burden of establishing the applicability of one or more of the 
mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32, which provide: 
 
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur 
and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment; 
 
(b) the individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and 
those pressures are no longer present in the person’s life; 
 
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the 
offense; and  
 
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited 
to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, 
compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher 
education, good employment record, or constructive community 
involvement. 
 
 Applicant has not been arrested since January 2015. He has demonstrated 
reform under AG ¶ 32(d) by successfully completing his probation with no evidence of 
any violation over the four years. His conduct was the result of unusual circumstances. 
 
 
8 
Applicant’s neighbor had a problem with his barking dogs. The dogs barked 
continuously for long periods of time. The police had responded four times to complaints 
from various neighbors, the owner was ticketed for disturbing the peace, and went to 
court responding to a complaint over his barking dogs. He was fined by the city. The 
dogs were rescue dogs and after the newspaper article and television news report 
about this incident, the dog rescue came and removed the dogs from the home.  
 
Applicant had previously called the police about the barking, only to be told the 
police would respond to loud party noise, but not to animal noise. When a different 
neighbor complained about the barking, the dogs’ owner dropped off a fan to that 
neighbor suggesting that “white noise” would cover up the barking. When another 
neighbor complained, the dogs’ owner put threatening notes on people’s doors 
throughout the neighborhood.  
 
Applicant was kept awake by the barking. When the dogs started barking the 
following night, Applicant went to the dog owner’s home to leave a note complaining 
about the barking. Applicant was unsure if anyone would be at the home. When the 
owner answered the door, Applicant confronted him about the barking. The dogs’ owner 
lied saying this was the first time he had received a complaint about the barking. The 
dogs’ owner became very upset when Applicant challenged the owner about his lie that 
he had never received complaints about the dogs’ barking. When Applicant stated he 
knew the owner had already been fined by the court for the barking, this further angered 
the owner.  
 
After Applicant stated his complaint, he returned to his car to leave. Both 
individuals were very upset and swearing. Applicant got into his car when the dogs’ 
owner struck the hood of Applicant’s car numerous times denting the hood of 
Applicant’s car. At that time, Applicant saw something in the owner’s hand, but because 
there was no porch light, Applicant could not tell what it was, only that it was metallic. It 
turned out to be a cell phone, but it is not uncommon that a homeowner in the state to 
leave their home with a handgun. 
 
Applicant showed poor judgment when he got out of his car as his neighbor 
continued to approach him. Thinking the neighbor to be armed, Applicant drew his 
handgun and pointed it at his neighbor yelling for his neighbor to stop. After exchanging 
additional words, Applicant got back in his car, drove home, called the police, gave the 
police his address, and said he had drawn his weapon. Since the incident, Applicant 
has had no interaction with the dogs’ owner. 
 
 The district attorney offered to dismiss the charges if Applicant wrote a letter of 
apology to the dogs’ owner. When Applicant refused to send the letter of apology, it cost 
him $4,000 in attorney’s fees plus additional expenses. Applicant decided to accept the 
district attorney’s offer of a misdemeanor when he was told it would cost an additional 
$8,000 to take the matter to court.  
 
 
9 
On November 23, 2016, Applicant plead guilty to the misdemeanor of pointing a 
weapon at others, and he was ordered to pay small amounts: a $50 fine, a $50 VCA, 
and $83 in court costs. He successfully completed one year of supervised probation, 
and more than one year of his two year requirement of unsupervised probation. 
Adjudication of the finding of guilty was deferred for three years, which ended in March 
2019 with the Order of Dismissal. Now that the deferred sentence has been 
successfully completed, his record will be expunged. When he made the decision to 
plead to the misdemeanor, he had no idea that doing so would affect his security 
clearance.  
 
 Applicant realizes he acted inappropriately and wishes he had never gone to the 
dogs’ owner’s home. The dogs’ owner’s previous actions in no way excuse Applicant’s 
actions, but did give Applicant insight in what to expect from the dogs’ owner. The 
frustration due to lack of sleep and the police not responding to barking dogs 
contributed to his inappropriate actions, but he makes no excuses for his actions. 
 
The mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32(a) apply as so much time has elapsed 
since the criminal behavior happened and it happened under such unusual 
circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur. The incident occurred in January 2015, more 
than four years ago. The events of the evening are both unusual and unlikely to recur.  
 
 The mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32(b) apply. Applicant’s lack of sleep from 
the previous night and all the previous times of barking dogs was a pressure that is no 
longer present in Applicant’s life, now that the dogs have been removed from his 
neighbor’s home. AG ¶ 32(d) applies since it has been more than four years without 
recurrence of criminal activity and Applicant complied with all court orders including his 
130 hours of community service at the dog shelter. His probation has ended and his 
deferred sentence has been successfully completed. Applicant’s has a good 
employment record as evidenced by his senior logistics manager’s opinion that 
Applicant is very dedicated, detailed, and passionate about the work he performs and is 
one of the company’s better project management specialists.  
 
Guideline E: Personal Conduct 
 
The concerns about personal conduct are set forth in AG ¶ 15:  
  
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 or sensitive information.  
 
SOR ¶ 2.a is a cross-allegation of the criminal conduct allegations in SOR ¶ 1. 
The security concerns associated with that conduct are largely addressed under 
Guideline J above. Nevertheless, AG ¶ 16(d)(2) also applies. Applicant’s arrests might 
affect his personal, professional, or community standing. AG ¶ 16(e)(1) applies. 
 
10 
 AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable:  
  
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any 
other single 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 
individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. 
This includes but is not limited to, consideration of: . . . (2) any disruptive, 
violent, or other inappropriate behavior. 
  
AG ¶ 16(e)6 does not apply because following the incident there was a 
newspaper article and television coverage of the incident. The incident does not cause 
Applicant to be vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, or duress because it is known 
to the public.  
 
  AG ¶ 17 sets forth potentially applicable mitigating conditions under Guideline E:  
 
(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;  
  
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling 
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressors, circumstances or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or other inappropriate 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.  
 
 As previously stated, it has been more than four years since the incident and it 
happened under unusual circumstances that are unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 17(c) applies. 
Although Applicant has not received counseling, he acknowledged his behavior showed 
poor judgment, and in light of his neighbor’s history of inappropriate and threatening 
conduct, he should never have gone to his neighbor’s home. Now that the dogs have 
been removed from his neighbor’s home the stressors and circumstances that 
contributed to the inappropriate behavior is unlikely to recur. 
                                                          
6 AG ¶ 16(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other 
individual or group. Such conduct includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect 
the person’s personal, professional, or community standing.  
 
11 
As previously stated, following the incident, a newspaper article and television 
news report informed the public, which included his employer’s security office, about his 
arrest. This reduces or eliminates any ongoing vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation 
or duress stemming from his circumstances. AG ¶ 17(e) applies. Applicant realizes he 
acted inappropriately and wishes he had never gone to the dogs’ owner’s home. The 
frustration due to lack of sleep and the police not responding to barking dogs 
contributed to his inappropriate actions, but he makes no excuses for his actions. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s 
conduct and all the 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 a 
security clearance 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. My comments under Guidelines J and E are 
incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were 
addressed under those guidelines but some warrant additional comment. 
 
Applicant is 56 years old, and he has been employed by a DoD contractor as a 
flight engineer and project manager from August 2000 to present. He honorably served 
in the U.S. Air Force from 1981 through 1985. He had no overseas deployments while 
on active duty, but spent three and a half years in Saudi Arabia with his contractor job. 
  
A security clearance adjudication is an evaluation of an individual’s judgment, 
reliability, and trustworthiness. Applicant realizes he acted inappropriately and wishes 
he had never gone to the dogs’ owner’s home. The frustration due to lack of sleep and 
the police not responding to barking dogs contributed to his inappropriate actions, but 
he makes no excuses for his actions. Applicant made a number of mistakes related to 
the incident, but the three biggest were: first, going to his neighbor’s home to leave a 
note about the barking dogs; second, pointing his gun at his neighbor; and, third, not 
writing the letter of apology. Had he written the letter of apology, the DA would have 
dismissed the case. Applicant’s decision not to write the letter cost him $4,000 for his 
 
12 
initial attorney, $4,000 for his second attorney, additional costs, stress, and a matter that 
started in January 2015 and came to a conclusion with the March 2019, Motion to 
Dismiss. Applicant was reluctant to apologize for pointing a firearm at his neighbor 
because he believed that based on his knowledge of the facts and circumstances 
pointing a firearm at his neighbor was warranted as self-defense. He should have 
apologized because from his neighbor’s perspective, his neighbor was threatened with 
a firearm on his own property when he was unarmed.  
 
I considered Applicant’s service to the U.S. military, his current position, and that 
this was a single, although serious, incident. His senior logistics manager, who was 
Applicant’s supervisor for two and a half years, believes Applicant is very dedicated, 
detailed, and passionate about the work he performs on aircraft upgrades. He believes 
Applicant has strong morals that drive his decisions and highly recommends Applicant. 
His project manager believes Applicant is one of the better project management 
specialists in the company. Applicant had completed 130 hours of community service at 
a dog shelter and the president and founder of the shelter organization believes 
Applicant was very hard working and a dedicated volunteer who always put in the best 
possible effort.  
 
 Supervisors have many tasks, but two of the most important of their many tasks 
are: first, to accomplish the mission, and second, to evaluate those individuals assigned 
to them. A portion of their duties is to make sure the right people receive proper training, 
are assigned the right positions, and determine who should be promoted or remain with 
the company. Their character evaluations are important and often more accurate 
because they have observed applicants over longer periods of time and under a variety 
of events and stresses. These supervisors are required to evaluate individuals and 
describe their performance, trustworthiness, reliability, and dedication. I place a great 
deal of weight on the evaluations given by Applicant’s senior logistics manager, project 
manager, and the president and founder of the organization running the dog shelter, 
and rightly so. 
 
I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the 
Directive, DOD Manual 5200.02, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the 
context of the whole person. The issue is whether this serious single incident raises 
concerns about his fitness to hold a security clearance. (See AG & 2(c)) Overall, the 
record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility 
and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the criminal conduct and personal conduct security concerns. 
 
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, Criminal Conduct:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
 
13 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
   
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 a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
 
 
 
_______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge