CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00152 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00152denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00152

Nov 28, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's appeal, which alleged errors in the Judge's analysis, was affirmed by the Appeal Board, which found no harmful error in the Judge's findings or application of the law.

The denial was based on a history of drug involvement, specifically the purchase and use of marijuana from 1994 to 2019. This included an arrest for misdemeanor possession in 1996. A significant concern was the applicant's continued use of marijuana even while granted access to classified information.

The Judge determined that the applicant's conduct under both Guideline H, specifically Disqualifying Condition H.1, and Guideline E, specifically Disqualifying Condition E.2, raised significant security concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.1raisedDrug Involvement
E.2raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 31, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 20, 2022after the record closed
Decision dateNov 28, 2022

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Findings Under Guideline H and E Due to Drug Involvement and Personal Conduct Issues
The Standard for Granting Security Clearance as Being Clearly Consistent with National Security
The Application of Similar Evidence Under Different Guidelines in Security Clearance Cases

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

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal concerned the denial of a security clearance based on allegations under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, rejecting the applicant's claims of error regarding the Judge's analysis and weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance, stating that the Judge's analysis was consistent with the evidence and applicable guidelines.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Moira Modzelewski

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: ) ) ) ----- ) ISCR Case No. 21-00152 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: November 28, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Angelo Fernandez, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 31, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 20, 2022, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline H, the SOR alleged that Applicant purchased and used marijuana from about 1994 to about 2019, that he was arrested for misdemeanor possession in 1996, that he used marijuana while granted access to classified information, and that he intends to use it in the future. These same behaviors were cross-alleged under Guideline E. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the allegation that he used while granted access. He found adversely on the remaining Guideline H allegations and on the Guideline E allegation. The favorable finding is not

in issue. 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.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Rather, he broadly contends the Judge erred in failing to comply with the provisions in Executive Order 10865 and the Directive by not considering all of the evidence, by mis-weighing the evidence, and by not properly applying the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. In his only specific assignment of error, Applicant’s counsel argues that the Judge erred in adopting his Guideline H analysis when he turned to the Guideline E allegations by stating “The analysis under Guideline H applies equally here. Personal conduct security concerns are not mitigated.” Decision at 7. Guideline E and Guideline H have different mitigating factors; thus there can be no rational connection between the decision under Guideline H and Guideline E because different evidence is needed to support the different mitigating factors. Essentially, the [Judge] used the conclusion and analysis of Guideline H for Guideline E without balancing the evidence under Guideline E factors. [Appeal Brief at 6–7.] To the extent that we understand counsel’s argument, we are not persuaded. Contrary to counsel’s assertion, different evidence is not necessarily required to establish security concerns under both guidelines. It is well-established that a judge may weigh the same evidence differently under different guidelines. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-03941 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 21, 2022). The Judge cited to the applicable mitigating conditions (MC) under both Guidelines: MC ¶¶ 26 (a) – (b) and MC ¶¶ 17 (c) – (e). Those conditions in fact closely mirror each other, and the Judge’s analysis under Guideline H was equally applicable under Guideline E. It did not need to be repeated. This assignment of error is without merit. None of Applicant’s arguments are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence or to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Moreover, the Judge complied with the requirements of the Directive in his whole-person analysis by considering all evidence of record in reaching his decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 3, 2020). The Hearing Office cases that Applicant’s counsel has cited are easily distinguishable, not binding precedent on the Appeal Board, and insufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02488 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2018). Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board