CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01443.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/28/2015
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 14-01443.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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 14-01443.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01443.a1

Apr 28, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance due to significant concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a substantial criminal history, including 29 arrests and convictions for offenses such as drug possession and resisting arrest.

Further disqualifying conditions arose from the applicant's deliberate falsification of information on her security clearance application. She provided false details regarding her employment history and criminal record, which significantly undermined her credibility.

Despite presenting evidence of rehabilitation and maintaining sobriety for over five years, the judge determined that the applicant's extensive past conduct, coupled with her intentional misrepresentations, was inconsistent with national security interests. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 25raisedDrug Involvement
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal 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 issuedJul 3, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 17, 2015
Decision dateApr 28, 2015

Cite For

Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Deliberate Falsification of Application as a Disqualifying Factor
Consideration of Rehabilitation in the Context of Past Conduct

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 after being denied due to concerns under Guidelines J, H, and E. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMartin H. Mogul — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline HGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The adverse impact of the decision on the applicant's employment was not a factor for consideration.

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
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 J; Guideline H; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. The Appeal Board is not permitted to consider the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-01443.a1 DATE: 04/28/2015 DATE: April 28, 2015 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-01443

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 July 3, 2014, DoD 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), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 17, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous arrests and/or convictions, 29 in all, for such offenses as criminal damage to property, possession of a narcotic, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, obstructing justice, violation of parole (a felony), and others. Applicant served time in jail on four different occasions. In addition, Applicant has a history of involvement with illegal drugs. She has been addicted in crack cocaine, has purchased drugs, and, since December 2009, has lived in “a sober living house.” Decision at 2. She has participated in rehabilitation programs, including Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous. She began using crack cocaine in 1991, due to peer pressure and to relieve pain caused by her having been molested by a family member. She was addicted to crack for 18 years. She stated that she has been sober since December 2009. In completing her security clearance application (SCA), Applicant provided false answers to several questions. She provided a home address that was not true, insofar she was homeless at the time in question. She alleged that she had been employed by a company from 2004 until the present, when in actuality she had been fully employed there since 2009. She acknowledged that she had provided false information, but stated that she did so in order to keep her job. Applicant also falsified material information about her police record, denying any drug or alcohol related offenses, and also denied illegal use of drugs or having participated in drug rehabilitation programs. Applicant also made false statements to a clearance investigator regarding her home address and arrests and convictions. Applicant admitted the allegations of deliberate falsification. Applicant called two character witnesses, one of whom was her sponsor in AA. Her sponsor attested to her continued sobriety. She enjoys an excellent reputation for honesty, dependability, and hard work. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted Applicant’s progress in rehabilitating herself from her addiction, but he stated that the duration of her criminal conduct and her deliberate falsifications precluded a favorable finding under Guideline J. Likewise, he concluded that her failure to disclose her drug use impaired her credibility concerning mitigation of the Guideline H allegations. The Judge found that none of the Guideline E mitigating conditions applied to Applicant’s numerous falsifications.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence of her sobriety for the five years preceding the hearing, arguing that she has shown rehabilitation. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has she shown that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00508 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015). Applicant states that she needs a clearance in order to keep her job. However, the Directive does not permit us to consider the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision. Id. The Judge examined the relevant data 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board