CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01950.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date8/7/2018
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 17-01950.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Charles C. Hale, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
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 17-01950.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01950.a1

Aug 7, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee and former military 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 stemmed primarily from the applicant's deliberate false statements made during a background investigation.

Specifically, the applicant was found to have falsified information regarding past drug use. The judge determined that this dishonesty significantly undermined the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, which are essential for holding a security clearance.

No mitigating conditions were found applicable to the applicant's case, leading to the ultimate decision to deny the security clearance request.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG EraisedPersonal Conduct
AG FraisedFinancial Considerations
AG HraisedDrug Involvement

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 issuedJul 17, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 19, 2018
Decision dateAug 7, 2018

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial
Impact of Dishonesty on Reliability and Trustworthiness Under Guideline E
No Applicable Mitigating Conditions in Cases of Deliberate Falsehoods

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 who was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E, F, and H. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion of deliberate falsification.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline EGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued 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 finding of deliberate falsification was supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Board affirmed the adverse decision based on the evidence presented.

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
Charles C. Hale

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 E; Guideline F; Guideline H DIGEST: Applicant denied that he had deliberately misled the investigator. However, after considering the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-01950.a1 DATE: 08/07/2018 DATE: August 7, 2018 In Re: -------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01950

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 July 17, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 19, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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’s findings contained errors and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines F and H are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings and Analysis Applicant is an employee of the Defense contractor. He served in the military from 2000 until 2010. In 2001, while on active duty, he smoked marijuana on several occasions and used cocaine once. In 2009, he used an alternative to marijuana known as spice. He did so several times. Applicant also took Percocet twice without a prescription. Another service member provided the Percocet to him, and on the second occasion he snorted it. As a consequence of this misconduct, Applicant received nonjudicial punishment and was discharged prior to the completion of his term of service with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. When he was interviewed during his background investigation, Applicant told the investigator that his wife had given him one Percocet pill that he had taken to relieve back pain. He stated that he had never smoked spice and had never snorted Percocet. He claimed that the only time he had used Percocet it was given to him by his wife. At the hearing, he acknowledged that he had not told the investigator the truth. The Judge stated that Applicant’s deliberate false statements to the investigator cast doubt upon his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. None of the potentially applicable mitigating conditions apply.

DISCUSSION

Applicant denied that he had deliberately misled the investigator. However, after considering the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-04094 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2018). Applicant cites to evidence that he contends the Judge did not consider or that he mis-weighed. However, Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01077 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 25, 2018). Applicant cites to the adverse impact that an unfavorable decision will have upon him. However, the Directive does not permit us to consider this matter. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01492 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2018). 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board