A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 00-0245
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 16, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
ry 16, 2001</P>
<P><HR>
</P>
In Re:
<P>-----------------</P>
<P>SSN: -----------</P>
<P>Applicant for Security Clearance</P>
<P><HR>
</P>
ISCR Case No. 00-0245
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><STRONG>APPEAL BOARD DECISI
Procedural History
EM></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><EM></EM></SPAN></P>
<P>Administrative Judge Jerome H. Silber issued a decision dated September 28, 2000, in which he concluded it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant appealed. F
Appeal Issues
r the reasons
set forth below the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.</P>
<P>The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated
January 2, 1992 as amended.</P>
<P>Applicant's appeal presents the following issues: Whether the Administrative Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious or contrary
to law?</P>
<P><CENTER><STRONG>Procedural History</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>
<P>The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant dated May 31, 2000. The SOR
was based on Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).
Applicant requested a hearing which was held on August 22, 2000. The Administrative Judge issued a decision on September 28,
2000 in which he concluded that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Applicant appealed that unfavorable decision.<A HREF="#N_1_"><SUP> (1)</SUP></A></P>
<P><CENTER><STRONG>Appeal Issue</STRONG></CENTER>
</P>
<P>Whether the Administrative Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law? On appeal, Applicant discusses various
prior inconsistent statements as to his drug history and the role of others in preparing the wri
Conclusion
at the
Administrative Judge's conclusions regarding Applicant's falsification conduct are arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3.</P>
<P>The federal government must