KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged findings are based upon substantial evidence.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 04-11860.a1
DATE: 07/10/2007
DATE: July 10, 2007
In Re:
---------
SSN: -----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-11860
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Dennis J. Sysco, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On February 18, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
2
On November 30, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant has raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s factual findings
were based upon substantial evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is an electronics technician for a
defense contractor who has held a security clearance since 1992.  From 1996 until 2002, Applicant
worked for a contractor in the office of a government agency.
In November 2001, workers in Applicant’s branch were asked to clean out a space previously
occupied by a worker who had since retired.  Among the items cleared out were tool cabinets and
tools.  The government employee in charge of equipment storage advised the workers that if they
wanted any of the tools, to take them, since they would otherwise be thrown out.  Applicant and his
branch chief each took a tool cabinet.  They transported the cabinets to their homes by means of a
government van, doing so on company time rather than their off-duty hours.  Applicant also took
tools, such as pliers, socket drivers, screwdrivers, wrenches, a flashlight, and electrical tape, etc.  
In December 2001, Applicant was interviewed about the incident.  He admitted taking the
property and returned it.  His access to Secret Compartmentalized Information (SCI) was terminated,
and he was fired from his job.  
In May 2003, Applicant was interviewed by a member of the Defense Security Service
(DSS).  He stated in part that when he took the tool cabinet, he thought “that it would go to
government auction and be auctioned off, so I was trying to sidestep that procedure.  I thought the
only thing I was doing wrong was side stepping the excess procedure.  I know I did wrong, I
apologized to the investigator and other government officials when the items were returned, as well
as my boss.”  Decision at 4, quoting Government Exhibit 2.
Subsequently, in his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated, “The items I took were marked
for excess.  It was later explained to me by a family member that the items needed to be taken to a
disposal unit on the base and removed from the agency’s books and then they could offer it up for
public auction.  I only found out about this procedure after I had removed the items that were being
excessed.”  Decision at 5, quoting Answer to SOR.
During his testimony, Applicant acknowledged that, in his 2001 interview, he did not state
that the equipment manager had authorized him to take the government property.  He stated that he
did not want to the get the person in trouble.  He also stated that at the time he did not believe that
the property was actually going to be thrown away.  Decision at 5.  
We have examined the Judge’s findings in light of the record as a whole and conclude that
they are based upon substantial evidence.  See Directive  ¶  E3.1.32.1; Consolo v. Federal Maritime
Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966).  Therefore, we resolve the first assigned error adversely to
Applicant.
The Judge’s analysis is consistent with other record evidence, such as Applicant’s testimony that his employer1
would not have approved of his delivering the property to his home on company time. 
 
Q: So in other words you falsified your time cards?
A: I guess so, yes.  Tr. at 68.
3
Regarding the second assigned error, we note that, in analyzing the case, the Judge
considered not only the underlying misconduct but also Applicant’s various statements about his
state of mind when taking the property.  In that regard, the Judge observed, “Applicant’s inconsistent
statements pertaining to his knowledge of procedures for disposing of excess equipment raise
credibility issues.  His testimony that he initially did not mention the equipment manager’s name to
the security investigators because he did not want to get her into trouble indicates that he had some
knowledge that taking the tools and tool cabinet home was questionable.”  Decision at 8.  The Judge
concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion that it is “consistent with national
security” for him to have a clearance.  Id.  See  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528
(1988).  See also Directive  ¶  E3.1.15.  (“The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and
other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by
Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance
decision”).   1
In light of the above, we conclude that the Judge has articulated “rational connection between
the facts found” and her ultimate adverse clearance decision.  See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the
United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck
Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  Accordingly, we hold that her decision is
not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
4
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael D. Hipple          
Michael D. Hipple
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