CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03900.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03900.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03900.a1

Oct 26, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from multiple alcohol-related incidents and the intentional falsification of information on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant had three DWI arrests between 2008 and 2014. He failed to disclose these offenses on his application, which constituted intentional falsification. Although the applicant claimed sobriety since 2014, this assertion was uncorroborated and deemed insufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by his past conduct and dishonesty.

The appeal board found that the applicant's actions met disqualifying conditions related to both alcohol consumption and personal conduct. Consequently, the board upheld the denial, emphasizing the critical importance of honesty and the lack of sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 2(a)raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedMar 5, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldAug 17, 2018
Decision dateOct 26, 2018Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial Based on Multiple Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Intentional Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Importance of Corroborating Claims of Sobriety in 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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E and Guideline G. The applicant argued that his past alcohol incidents were behind him and that he was no longer consuming alcohol. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge’s decision is in error because all of his alcohol incidents are in the past and he no longer consumes alcohol.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence did not demonstrate harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 E; Guideline G DIGEST: Applicant contends the Judge’s decision is in error because all of his alcohol incidents are in the past and he no longer consumes alcohol. He also argues that the honesty concerns under Guideline E were caused by his “alcohol consumption addiction” and are no longer a concern because he is now cured of his “alcohol disease.” In essence, Applicant is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03900.a1 DATE: 10/26/2018 DATE: October 26, 2018 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03900

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 March 5, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under 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 decision on the written record. On August 17, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon 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. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Between 2008 and 2014, Applicant was arrested three times for driving while intoxicated (DWI). After his first DWI conviction in 2008, he vowed he would never drink again. Following his second DWI arrest in 2012, he pled guilty to the lesser charges of reckless driving. In 2015, he was convicted of the third DWI offense and served 10 days in jail with the remaining five months and 20 days of his jail sentence suspended. In a security clearance application (SCA) submitted in 2016, he did not disclose that he was ever charged with any offense involving alcohol. In a background interview in 2017, he told the interviewer that he had no recollection of being arrested in 2014. Applicant claims his last known use of alcohol occurred when he was arrested in 2014. He provided the names of three individuals who could vouch for his character and sobriety, but failed to provide statements from them. His uncorroborated claim of abstinence since 2014 is inadequate to establish sufficient time has passed since his last incident. His promise to not drink again in 2008 proved to be a commitment he could not keep. The Government proved by substantial evidence that Applicant intentionally falsified responses in his 2016 SCA.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant provided statements from three individuals that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends the Judge’s decision is in error because all of his alcohol incidents are in the past and he no longer consumes alcohol. He also argues that the honesty concerns under Guideline E were caused by his “alcohol consumption addiction” and are no longer a concern because he is now cured of his “alcohol disease.” Appeal Brief at 1. In essence, Applicant is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016). Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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