KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: Given the record that was before him the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s omission
was a deliberate falsification is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 05-16743.a1
DATE: 04/11/2007
DATE: April 11, 2007
In Re:
--------
SSN: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-16743
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 Applicant a security
clearance.  On February 2, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline
E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 11,
2006, after the hearing,  Administrative Judge James A. Young denied Applicant’s request for a
The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline B and with respect to SOR paragraph 2.a.  Those
1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.1
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that
Applicant intentionally made a false statement on her Security Clearance Application.
Applicant argues that the Judge erred by concluding that Applicant had intentionally made
a false statement on her Security Clearance Application.  Applicant contends that the omission
occurred because she had not read the question properly.  Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate
that the Judge erred. 
Applicant’s statements about her intent and state of mind when he executed the document
in question were relevant evidence, but they were not binding on the Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 01-19278 at 6-7 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2003). As the trier of fact, the Judge had to consider
Applicant’s statements in light of the record evidence as a whole, and Applicant’s denial of any
intent to provide false information did not preclude the Judge from weighing the record evidence and
making findings that contradicted Applicant’s denials.  In this case, the Judge made sustainable
findings that Applicant had omitted information of obvious security concern, relating to Applicant’s
conviction on a charge of “Shoplifting.”  Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s
conclusion that Applicant’s omission were intentional is sustainable, and the Judge’s ultimate
unfavorable clearance decision under Guidelines E and J is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to
law.
3
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin        
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board