ISCR Case 03-24392.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-24392.h1

grantedSep 22, 2005· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited a 2002 criminal trespass conviction, which occurred when she entered her ex-husband's residence to retrieve a computer. Police determined her ex-husband's actions during the incident constituted domestic assault. Additionally, a 2003 DUI conviction was noted, stemming from an incident where she drove her car into a vehicle carrying her second husband after a dispute. A March 1986 drug-related arrest was also mentioned, though all charges were dropped.

Disqualifying conditions related to criminal conduct were raised, but several mitigating conditions were applied. The judge found that the applicant had successfully demonstrated rehabilitation from her past actions. It was determined that her conduct was influenced by emotional turmoil from her relationships rather than being indicative of her overall character.

The applicant had completed court-mandated probation and community service, further demonstrating her commitment to change. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's security eligibility was consistent with national interest, and her security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant successfully demonstrated rehabilitation from past criminal conduct.
The judge found that the applicant's actions were influenced by emotional turmoil and not indicative of her character.
The applicant had completed court-mandated probation and community service, showing a commitment to change.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.2appliedThe Crime Was an Isolated Incident
E2.A10.1.3.3appliedThe Person Was Pressured or Coerced Into Committing the Act and Those Pressures Are No Longer Present in That Person's Life
E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThe Person Did Not Voluntarily Commit the Act And/or the Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“A person should not be held forever accountable for actions from the past if there is a clear indication of subsequent reform, remorse, or rehabilitation.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2004
Answer filedDec 30, 2004
Hearing heldMar 29, 2005
Decision dateSep 22, 2005

Cite For

Demonstrating Successful Rehabilitation After Past Criminal Conduct
Impact of Emotional Turmoil on Behavior in Domestic Situations
Consideration of Mitigating Factors in Criminal Conduct Cases Under Guideline J

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In 2002, Applicant resorted to trespassing when she entered her ex-husband's residence, over his objections, to retrieve a computer her friend had loaned her son. Her ex-husband's overreaction in denying her possession of the computer and in grabbing her against her will, and holding onto her until he fell out of his wheelchair, through no fault of Applicant, according to the police, constituted domestic assault. She was convicted only of criminal trespass.	For Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.b	In 2003, she was convicted of DUI when, after drinking with her second husband for several hours and having a dispute with him, she drove her automobile into a car carrying him.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.c	Following a March 1986 drug-related arrest, all charges were dropped.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In 2002, Applicant resorted to trespassing when she entered her ex-husband's residence, over his objections, to retrieve a computer her friend had loaned her son. Her ex-husband's overreaction in denying her possession of the computer and in grabbing her against her will, and holding onto her until he fell out of his wheelchair, through no fault of Applicant, according to the police, constituted domestic assault. She was convicted only of criminal trespass.

For Applicant

Trespassing or Burglary

Convicted

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.b

In 2003, she was convicted of DUI when, after drinking with her second husband for several hours and having a dispute with him, she drove her automobile into a car carrying him.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.c

Following a March 1986 drug-related arrest, all charges were dropped.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES