FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: Hearing Office decisions in other cases are not binding on the Board or on other
Hearing Office Judges.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-22628.a1
DATE: 10/30/2007
DATE: October 30, 2007
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22628
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 December 13, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and
The SOR was subsequently amended on the motion of the government.1
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive).   Applicant requested a hearing.  On May 29, 2007, after the hearing,1
Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Administrative Judge’s decision
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  
In her appeal brief, Applicant states that she feels she did not present sufficient information
at the hearing as to why she did not list the criminal charges against her in her Security Clearance
Application (SF-86).  She therefore restates her testimony on that issue.  She cites a Hearing Office
decision in a case she believes is similar to hers.  In that case, the applicant was granted a clearance.
She also submits three letters of recommendation from supervisors.  
To the extent that Applicant provides any evidence on appeal that was not presented at the
hearing, the Board cannot consider it, since the Directive does not allow consideration of new
evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  This applies to any additions to Applicant’s testimony
and the three letters of recommendation.  Moreover, Hearing Office decisions in other cases are not
binding  on the Board or on other Hearing Office judges.  Therefore, Applicant’s ability to cite a
Hearing Office decision in another case that appears to support Applicant’s position does not
demonstrate that the Judge’s decision in this case is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-24062 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 31, 2005).
With regard to Applicant’s restatement of her testimony, there is no indication in the
transcript that Applicant was prevented during the hearing from presenting her explanation of her
failure to disclose her criminal conduct on her SF-86.  Moreover, the Judge included Applicant’s
explanation in his decision, although it is clear from the decision that the Judge did not find
Applicant’s explanation credible.  Under the Directive, the Board must give deference to the Judge’s
credibility determinations.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.    
The Judge found that Applicant was involved in six criminal offenses between 1997 and
2003 and that she falsified her SF-86.  The Judge had the opportunity to consider Applicant’s
explanation for her failure to disclose the information in question on her SF-86.  The Judge was not
bound, as a matter of law, to accept Applicant’s explanation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01676
at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 11, 2007).  The Judge considered Applicant’s explanation in light of the evidence
as a whole, and concluded there was a sufficient basis to find that Applicant’s omissions were
deliberate and intentional.  On this record, the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is
sustainable.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin             
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board