KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge articulated a rational connection between his findings and ultimate adverse
conclusion.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 05-00151.a1
DATE: 05/08/2007
DATE: May 8, 2007
In Re:
--------
SSN: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-00151
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Julie R. Edmunds, Esq, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Robert W. Gevers, II, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 26, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J
(Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan.2, 1992, as
The SOR was amended at the hearing on the Government’s motion without objection from Applicant.1
The Judge noted an inconsistency in his 2003 statements.  Applicant states in his SF 86 that he used crack from2
1994 until 1997, but in a subsequent interview he states that the ending date was 1996.  Decision at 3.
2
amended)(Directive).   Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 29, 2006, after the hearing,1
Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
submitted a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant asserts the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that
Applicant had not mitigated the Guidelines E and J security concerns.  We affirm the decision of the
Judge.
Applicant has not challenged the Judges findings of fact.  Therefore we rely on those findings
in resolving the issue before us on appeal.  See ISCR Case No. 03-11765 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 11,
2005).  The Judge found that in security clearance applications in 1988 and 1996 Applicant made
a series of  false statements concerning his involvement with drugs–marijuana, cocaine, crack
cocaine, and LSD.  Applicant finally admitted the extent of his involvement during a security
clearance investigation in 2003.   Additionally the Judge found that Applicant was charged with and2
convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.  
In his decision, the Judge acknowledged that Applicant had finally admitted his drug
involvement but concluded that Applicant’s false statements constituted a “pattern of behavior
intended to hide Applicant’s lengthy history of drug use . . .”  Decision at 6.  The Judge went on to
state that Applicant’s “conduct is serious, voluntary . . . and there is no assurance that it will not
occur again in the future,” particularly in view of Applicant’s [having] promised investigators in
1989 that he would not use illegal drugs again yet having continued to do so.  Id.   Significantly, the
Judge stated that he did not believe Applicant’s 2003 statement.   See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1 (“[T]he
Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge.”);
ISCR Case No. 02-03186 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2006).  Based upon the foregoing, the Judge
concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of producing sufficient evidence to mitigate the
Government’s security concerns.   
Examining the decision in light of the record, we conclude that the Judge has articulated a
rational connection between his findings and his ultimate unfavorable conclusion.  See, e. g., ISCR
Case No. 03-00577 at n. 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 11, 2006).  Given the Judge’s findings, unchallenged on
appeal, we conclude that his decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.  See ISCR
Case No. 00-0382 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Jun. 19, 2001).
3
Order
The Judge’s decision 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