CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-08765.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-08765.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-08765.a1

May 21, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A warehouse specialist for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to undisclosed marijuana use during his teenage years. The applicant had regularly used marijuana in his youth but failed to disclose this information on his security clearance application.

The judge determined that this conduct raised significant security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), specifically citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 15 and AG ¶ 14. The judge concluded that the applicant's past drug use and the failure to disclose it were critical factors.

The appeal board subsequently affirmed the denial, agreeing that granting the clearance was not clearly consistent with national security interests. The security clearance was therefore DENIED.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 14raisedPersonal 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 issuedNov 19, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 14, 2008Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 21, 2008Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Disclosure Obligations Under Guideline E
Impact of Past Drug Use on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standards for National Security Interests 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 an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to concerns under Guideline E and Guideline J. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The applicant argued that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the adverse security clearance decision based on the record as a whole.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 J DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-08765.a1 DATE: 05/21/2008 DATE: May 21, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-08765

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 November 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 The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR ¶ 1(a) is not at issue in this appeal. Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On February 14, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. We construe Applicant’s appeal as raising the following issue: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a warehouse specialist for a defense contractor. He began using marijuana while in his early teens, smoking it approximately every other day. “After he turned 18 in 2001, his use of marijuana varied. Some months he used it more frequently, up to ten times, other months only about twice.” Decision at 2. He stopped using marijuana in 2003. When Applicant filled out his security clearance application in December 2004 (SCA) he responded “no” to question 27, which asked if, within the previous seven years, he had illegally used any controlled substance, including marijuana. In support of his appeal, Applicant has submitted new evidence, which the Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Viewed in light of the record as a whole, the Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable. Decision at 10. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). ( “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”)

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey 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