CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01458.a2 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01458.a2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01458.a2

deniedFeb 14, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 55-year-old retired Air National Guard member was denied eligibility for a Common Access Card (CAC) due to past criminal conduct. The denial was based on Guideline G, concerning criminal conduct, specifically citing disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a) and AG ¶ 16(c).

The applicant's past conduct included felony first-degree assault and domestic violence against his girlfriend. This history indicated a significant inability to control impulsive or violent behavior. Despite the applicant's claims of good character and community involvement, the appeal board determined there was insufficient evidence to mitigate concerns arising from these actions.

Ultimately, the appeal board found no harmful error in the judge's initial decision. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or remorse for his past actions, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's past conduct involved felony first-degree assault and domestic violence, indicating a significant inability to control impulsive or violent behavior.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or remorse for his actions.
The appeal board found no harmful error in the judge's decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedSerious Criminal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 9, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 28, 2018Decision issued by Judge Matthew E. Malone.
Decision dateFeb 14, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Past Criminal Conduct Under AG Conditions
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation or Remorse in Domestic Violence Cases
Limitations on New Evidence Submission During Appeal Process

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: CAC DIGEST: Applicant, who is 55 years old, was arrested and charged with felony first-degree assault, misdemeanor second-degree assault, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment in 2016. At that time, he was living with his girlfriend and their two-year-old child. He became angry when he thought his girlfriend hid his car keys. He climbed on top of her in bed and choked her for about ten seconds. He allegedly said, “I should kill you now.” She told police she feared he would kill her and there had been other unreported incidents of domestic violence. The charges were dismissed and expunged from his record. He provided a statement of his community involvement. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01458.a2 DATE: 02/14/2019 DATE: February 14, 2019 In Re: ------------------------- Applicant for CAC Eligibility ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAC Case No. 17-01458

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman , Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant eligibility for Common Access Card (CAC) credentialing. On November 9, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–Criminal or Dishonest Conduct concerns raised under the adjudicative standards in the appendices of DoD Instruction 5200.46 (Sep. 9, 2014) (Instruction). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 28, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for CAC eligibility. Applicant appealed the decision pursuant to Instruction, Enclosure 4 ¶ 6. On October 29, 2018, we remanded the case to the Judge to correct an identified error. On November 16, 2018, the Judge issued a Remand Decision in which he again denied Applicant’s request for a CAC. Applicant appealed pursuant to DoD Directive 5220.6. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Finding of Fact and Analysis Applicant, who is 55 years old, has been working in a position that requires CAC eligibility since late 2015. He is retired from the Air National Guard. The SOR alleges that Applicant was arrested and charged with felony first-degree assault, misdemeanor second-degree assault, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment in 2016. At that time, he was living with his girlfriend and their two-year-old child. He became angry when he thought his girlfriend hid his car keys. He climbed on top of her in bed and choked her for about ten seconds. He allegedly said, “I should kill you now.” Decision at 3. She told police she feared he would kill her and there had been other unreported incidents of domestic violence. The charges were dismissed and expunged from his record. He provided a statement of his community involvement. Other than indicating the charges were dismissed, Applicant did not provide information refuting them or addressing the underlying conduct, which is indicative of a significant inability to control impulsive or violent behavior. His alleged conduct was not minor and occurred less than two years ago. He did not provide information establishing rehabilitation or remorse. Applicant’s response did not sufficiently address the unacceptable risk concerns.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief draws our attention to his evidence of good character and community involvement. In addition, it contains statements and documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board may not receive or consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29 Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. In light of the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board