CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-08147,a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-08147,a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-08147,a1

Sep 10, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security assistant employed by a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from the applicant's deliberate misrepresentation on his security clearance application concerning both drug use and delinquent debts.

The judge found the applicant's credibility to be lacking due to these false statements. Further contributing to the adverse decision was the applicant's prior employment termination, which occurred because he falsified investigative reports.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that substantial evidence supported the judge's findings regarding the applicant's deliberate misrepresentation and lack of credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“Substantial evidence is “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.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 19, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 30, 2008
Decision dateSep 10, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Security Clearance Decisions Based on False Statements Under Guideline E and H
Substantial Evidence Standard in Security Clearance Cases
Credibility Issues Arising From Prior Employment Misconduct

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 security concerns under Guideline E and Guideline H. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the material findings of security concern were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not err in applying mitigating conditions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline H

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's material findings of security concern are supported by substantial evidence, and the Board found no error in the Judge's application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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 E; Guideline H DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-08147,a1 DATE: 09/10/2008 DATE: September 10, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-08147

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 19, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 30, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence; and whether the Judge erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following sustainable findings of fact: Applicant is a security assistant employed by a defense contractor. In November 2004, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA), in which he provided information that was not correct. He answered “no” to Question 27, which inquired as to whether he had used illegal drugs during the previous seven years. He also answered “no” to Question 30, which inquired as to delinquent debts over ninety days old. In fact, Applicant had smoked marijuana the previous March, while employed as a background investigator for another government contractor. He also had three delinquent debts which were more than ninety days old. In addition, in March 2004 Applicant was fired from a job as a background investigator for a government contractor for having falsified two investigative reports. We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record and conclude that his material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. (Substantial evidence is “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.”) We have also examined the Judge’s decision, paying close attention to his analysis of Applicant’s false statements. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately provided false information is sustainable. Furthermore, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). See also 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 decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 5. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, 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