CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-00574.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date7/24/2009
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 08-00574.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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 08-00574.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-00574.a1

Jul 24, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). These concerns stemmed from the applicant's criminal conduct, drug involvement, and alcohol consumption.

Specifically, the applicant's explanations for omissions in his security clearance application were considered but ultimately not accepted. The judge determined that the applicant had deliberately failed to disclose information regarding his criminal record, alcohol use, and drug use during the application process.

Given these findings, the security clearance was denied. The decision was upheld as consistent with national security interests, concluding that the applicant's conduct and lack of candor posed an unacceptable risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct
Guideline GraisedAlcohol Consumption
Guideline HraisedDrug Involvement
Guideline JraisedCriminal 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 issuedSep 15, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 23, 2009Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateJul 24, 2009

Cite For

Consideration of Applicant's Explanations for Omissions in Security Clearance Application
Deliberate Omission of Information as a Basis for Denial
Standard for Granting Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under multiple guidelines. The Applicant contended that the Judge erred in concluding he had deliberately omitted information from his application. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the reasoning or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline HGuideline GGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in concluding he had deliberately omitted information regarding his criminal record, alcohol use, and drug use.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge reasonably considered the Applicant's explanations and articulated a satisfactory rationale for the decision, which was not arbitrary or capricious.

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 Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline H; Guideline G; Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge was required to consider Applicant’s explanations for his omissions from his security clearance application but he was not obligated to accept to those explanations. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-00574.a1 DATE: 07/24/2009 DATE: July 24, 2009 In Re: ---- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-00574

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 September 15, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record. On April 23, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant argues that the Judge erred in his conclusion that Applicant had deliberately omitted information concerning his criminal record, alcohol use and drug use in response to two questions on his security clearance application—contending that he did not understand the nature of the questions, and that he lacked knowledge about the law and technicalities of security clearance procedures. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. A review of the decision indicates that the Judge reasonably considered Applicant’s explanation in the context of the record as a whole. Decision at 2-4 and 8-10. The Judge was required to consider Applicant’s explanations and did so. However, he was not obligated to accept Applicant’s explanations. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-12089 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 10, 2006). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” 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 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). Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board