CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01492.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/20/2018
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 16-01492.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome

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 16-01492.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01492.a1

Mar 20, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The judge found the applicant to be a problem drinker who exhibited poor judgment while under the influence of alcohol, citing a pattern of DUI incidents.

Specifically, the judge determined that the applicant's DUI incidents were indicative of a broader issue with drinking and driving. While some mitigating conditions were considered under AG ¶ 23, the disqualifying conditions raised under AG ¶ 24 and AG ¶ 21 were not sufficiently overcome.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that more time was required to ascertain if the applicant's security-significant conduct was truly in the past, and therefore, sufficient rehabilitation had not been demonstrated. The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing that security clearance decisions must align with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 24raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23rejectedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant's arguments regarding his character and reporting of misconduct were insufficient to mitigate the concerns.

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 issuedSep 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 15, 2017
Decision dateMar 20, 2018

Cite For

Pattern of Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Insufficient Rehabilitation Efforts in Alcohol Consumption Cases
National Security Interests as a Primary Consideration in Clearance Decisions

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 a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines F, G, and J. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with national security interests.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline GGuideline J

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 that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Judge's findings regarding the applicant's pattern of alcohol-related incidents were deemed reasonable and consistent with national security interests.

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 Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 F; Guideline G; Guideline J DIGEST: The Judge stated that Applicant was a problem drinker who exercised poor judgment while under the influence of alcohol. He stated that Applicant’s separate incidents of DUI cannot be viewed in isolation because they appear to be part of a larger pattern of drinking and driving. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01492.a1 DATE: 03/20/2018 DATE: March 20, 2018 In Re: ------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01492

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 a security clearance. On September 20, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Department Counsel subsequently amended the SOR to raise concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 15, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline F are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant works for a Federal contractor and seeks to retain a previously granted security clearance. In 2007 he was arrested and charged with two counts of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Applicant pled guilty to reckless driving, and the DUI charges were dropped. He was arrested again in December 2016 and charged with two counts of DUI and with speeding. The case was ongoing as of the close of the record, although Applicant testified that he made a foolish mistake by speeding after having consumed alcohol. Applicant’s character references describe him as trustworthy, dependable, honest, and hard-working. The Judge stated that Applicant was a problem drinker who exercised poor judgment while under the influence of alcohol. He stated that Applicant’s separate incidents of DUI cannot be viewed in isolation because they appear to be part of a larger pattern of drinking and driving. He characterized Applicant as contrite during the hearing and willing to accept responsibility. However, the Judge concluded that additional time was needed before it could be determined that Applicant’s security-significant conduct is behind him.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge erred by denying him a clearance based on two incidents that were several years apart. He states that he duly reported his recent misconduct to his employer and to his facility security officer. He does not consider himself to be a problem drinker. However, Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor are they sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). We conclude that the Judge satisfied the requirements of the Directive insofar as he evaluated the record as a cumulative whole. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03592 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 14, 2017). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The 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). 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 the national security.”

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