CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05362.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05362.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05362.a1

Nov 7, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial was primarily based on a history of excessive alcohol consumption and significant financial issues.

Specifically, the applicant had three DUI convictions, demonstrating a pattern of alcohol-related misconduct. Additionally, the applicant carried seven delinquent debts, totaling approximately $14,000. These financial obligations raised concerns about potential vulnerability and reliability.

Despite the applicant's arguments regarding personal growth and health issues, the appeal board upheld the initial denial. The board found that the applicant's mitigating claims were insufficient to outweigh the established disqualifying conditions, emphasizing the paramount importance of national security in clearance determinations. The denial was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21appliedPersonal 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 issuedDec 2, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 18, 2016
Decision dateNov 7, 2016

Cite For

Denial Based on Excessive Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Denial Based on Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 G, F, 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 and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence did not demonstrate harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James F. Duffy

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 G; Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: Disagreement with a Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or the ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. CASE NO: 14-05362.a1 DATE: 11/07/2016 DATE: November 7, 2016 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-05362

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 December 2, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 23, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable finding for Applicant on the sole Guideline E allegation has not been raised as an issue on appeal and is not discussed further. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s unfavorable clearance decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and the point of intoxication, from 1982 to 2012; that he had three driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated convictions; and that he had seven delinquent debts totaling about $14,000. In the appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact, but argues he encountered health problems that resulted in him being out of work for a year and that he returned to work in January 2016.1 This statement appears to be contradictory with his testimony. At the hearing held on July 18, 2016, he testified that he had been steadily employed since 2000 and had not been unemployed for any period. Tr. at 18. His statement in the appeal about being out of work for a year constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot receive or consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In the appeal, Applicant also argues that he has learned from his bad choices, no longer drinks alcohol, and is not a security risk. Such arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case. 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.” 1 In addition to his appeal brief dated September 14, 2016, Applicant later submitted a one-page undated handwritten document that raised no allegations of error. Of note, the Judge made findings of fact about Applicant’s health problems, but did not make any findings about him being out of work. He testified that he had surgery in October 2015. He also testified he was released from the hospital in January 2016. It is not clear from the record whether the two dates cited are from the same hospitalization. Tr. at 25 and 30.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board