CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-00898.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/25/2011
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 10-00898.h1) →
Participants
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: Melvin A. Howry
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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 10-00898.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-00898.a1

Mar 25, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee and former Navy service member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial was based on a history of drug use, false statements made on security clearance applications, and significant delinquent debts.

Specifically, the applicant had a history of using marijuana and other substances, which raised security concerns. Additionally, the applicant provided false information on security clearance applications regarding both drug use and an arrest. Financial concerns stemmed from $16,000 in delinquent debts, with the applicant failing to demonstrate effective debt management.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no error in the judge's assessment of the evidence presented.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedJun 4, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 30, 2010
Decision dateMar 25, 2011

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Consideration of False Statements on Security Applications Under Guideline E
Evaluation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F

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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to concerns under Guidelines H, E, and F. The applicant argued that the Judge did not properly analyze mitigating conditions and that the whole-person analysis was erroneous. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not properly analyze the pertinent mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

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

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-00898.a1 DATE: 03/25/2011 DATE: March 25, 2011 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-00898

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 4, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 30, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge did not properly analyze the pertinent mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1989 until 2001. He served in the Naval Reserves in 2002. He is married and has two children. He has held a security clearance since 1990. Applicant used marijuana in high school during his senior year. He also purchased and used it on an intermittent basis from 2002 until 2007. He used Ecstasy and Mushrooms a “few times” after leaving the Navy. In November 21, 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. He failed to appear in court. In completing security clearance applications (SCA) in 2003 and 2007, Applicant provided false answers concerning his drug use and his drug-related arrest. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling $16,000. Some of the debts are for tuition bills that he could not pay while attending technical school. He has paid some debts not listed in the SOR. In 2007, he had a wage garnishment for his 2003 state and federal taxes. He has not paid any other debts in the SOR. Applicant is searching for debt consolidation plans and has sent letters to several of his creditors to inquire about the status of the debts. He has received no credit counseling. He enjoys a good reputation for being hard working and reliable. Applicant contends that the Judge either did not consider all of the record evidence or mis- weighed the evidence. However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01735 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2010). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Applicant contends that the Judge failed to apply the mitigating conditions which are pertinent to his case. However, Applicant’s argument is premised on the assumption that the Judge erred in her consideration or weighing of the record evidence. The underlying assumption is invalid and, thus, Applicant’s argument fails. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,’” both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. 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 Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record. “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).

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; William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board