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

ISCR Case No. 04-07703

Appeal Board

Decided Jan 17, 2007 · Administrative Judge David M. White · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on allegations of personal conduct under Guideline E. The Applicant challenged the findings of the Administrative Judge, asserting insufficient evidence and mischaracterization of facts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the conclusions reached.

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

Appeal Board Decision

earance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 04-07703

</MULTICOL>

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 or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On August 5, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising

Applicant of the basis for that decision- security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). Applicant

requested a hearing. On June 19, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant's request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the

Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

The Judge made extensive findings of fact which are a matter of record and need not be repeated in detail here. They will be cited as necessary in addressing material issues raised by Applicant on

appeal. The Judge found against Applicant on all eight allegations raising security concerns under Guideline E. Six of these allegations involved falsification or deliberate omission of relevant and

material facts from her security clearance application and the other two involved adverse information concerning problems with former employers. Her appeal starts by asserting insufficiency of

proof concerning the latter two issues.

Applicant first asserts that the Judge erred in finding against her under SOR ¶ 1.h,<A HREF="#N_1_"> (1)</A> because there was insufficient evidence to prove she was the person who made the unauthorized calls from her

employer's phone. The Judge chose to base her findings on the contemporaneous substantiating documentation supplied by this previous employer over Applicant's inconsistent denials and stated

inability to remember making the calls. She next asserts that the proof of her being terminated, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a,<A HREF="#N_2_"> (2)</A> was false. In support of this position she merely restates her version of the

reasons she was fired, a version noted and rejected in the decision below. The Judge again chose to base her findings on the contemporaneous substantiating documentation from the former

employer rather than accept Applicant's otherwise uncorroborated version of events.<A HREF="#N_3_"> (3)</A>

The Appeal Board's review of the Judge's findings of fact is limited to determining if they are supported by substantial evidence - "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support such a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record." Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. "This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of

drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n,

383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966). In evaluating a Judge's findings, we are required to give deference to the Judge's credibility determinations. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.

The Board finds each of the Judge's challenged findings to be supported by substantial evidenc

Appearances

E="text-align: CENTER">APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT</STRON

Order

prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n,

383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966). In evaluating a Judge's findings