A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 07-08765.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 21, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a warehouse specialist for a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance due to undisclosed marijuana use during his teenage years. The judge found that the applicant's past drug use and failure to disclose it on his security clearance application raised significant security concerns. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that granting the clearance was not clearly consistent with national security interests.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant used marijuana regularly during his teenage years and failed to disclose this on his security clearance application.
- The judge determined that the applicant's conduct raised significant security concerns under Guideline E and Guideline J.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 15 Criminal Conductraised
- AG ¶ 14 Personal Conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-11-19
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2008-02-14 Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2008-05-21 Appeal 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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E and Guideline J. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no error in the Judge's ruling.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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