CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-07803.a2 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date1/7/2010
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 08-07803.h2) →See the appeal decision (Case 08-07803.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 08-07803.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 08-07803.a2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07803.a2

deniedJan 7, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· hearing

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to significant concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial primarily stemmed from the applicant providing false answers regarding prior illegal drug use on multiple security clearance applications.

The judge determined that these omissions were deliberate and not merely oversights, directly raising disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16, AG ¶ 17, AG ¶ 18, and AG ¶ 19. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns, particularly under Guideline E.

The decision underscored the paramount importance of national security interests in all clearance determinations, leading to the denial of the applicant's request.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant provided false answers regarding prior illegal drug use on security clearance applications.
The judge concluded that the applicant's omissions were deliberate and not due to oversight.
The applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline E.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 17raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 18raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 9, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 15, 2009
Decision dateJan 7, 2010Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Deliberate Falsehoods in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Importance of National Security Interests in Clearance Determinations
Insufficient Claims of Oversight to Mitigate Security Concerns

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

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J; Guideline G; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicants assertions regarding his omissions on two security clearance applications do demonstrate error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-07803.a2 DATE: 01/07/2010 DATE: January 7, 2010 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-07803

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Judge made findings in Applicant’s favor under Guideline F, Guideline J and Guideline G. Those findings are not at issue on appeal. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 9, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 15, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30, and Department Counsel subsequently cross-appealed pursuant to Directive ¶ E3.1.28. The Appeal Board remanded the case for a new decision on September 21, 2009. The Judge issued a new decision on October 22, 2009, in which he again denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge found that, on two different security clearance applications, Applicant provided false answers concerning his prior illegal drug use. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s answers were deliberately false and that, viewed in light of the entire record, Applicant had failed to mitigate the Guideline E security concerns. Applicant asserts that omissions concerning drug use on security clearance applications completed by him in 2005 and 2007 were the result of oversight. Applicant’s assertions do not establish error on the part of the Judge. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline E is sustainable.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is affirmed. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board