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

ISCR Case No. 00-0417.a1

Appeal Board

Decided May 1, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved an applicant challenging an adverse security clearance decision based on findings under Guideline E and Guideline J. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's credibility determinations and weighing of evidence.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Appearances

determination is unsustainable. A Judge must consider all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. Falsification of a securit

Procedural History

!-- CASE --> <!-- 00-0417.a1

-->   <!-- 05/01/2001

-->

DATE: May 1, 2001

<HR>

In Re:

-------------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 00-0417

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

<ST

Appeal Issues

NG>APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason issued a decision, dated January 10, 2001, in which he concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or

continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant appealed. For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.

This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.

Applicant's appeal presents the issue of whether the Administrative Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated August 25, 2000 to Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline C (Foreign

Preference), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

A hearing was held on October 26, 2000. The Administrative Judge issued a written decision, dated January 10, 2001, in which he concluded it is not clearly consistent

with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The case is before the Board on Applicant's appeal from the Judge's adverse decision.

<CENTER>Appeal Issue</CENTER>

The Administrative Judge entered formal findings in favor of Applicant with respect to the SOR paragraphs dealing with Guideline B and Guideline C. Those favorable

formal findings are not at issue on appeal.

Applicant challenges the Admi

Conclusion

t 1999, the Judge's adverse security clearance decision

is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

<CENTER>Conclusion</STRON