KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge the opportunity to consider Applicant’s explanations for her failure to
disclose the requested information.  He was not bound as a matter of law to accept or reject those
explanations.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-02163.a1
DATE: 02/28/2008
DATE: February 28, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-02163
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 May 11, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline H and with respect to SOR paragraphs 2.a, 2.b, and1
2.e.  Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record.  On October
29, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding
Applicant’s falsifications were deliberate.
Applicant argues that she did not deliberately falsify her security clearance application,
executed on July 18, 2006, by failing to disclose an alcohol-related arrest which had occurred in
March 2006.  In support of that argument, Applicant contends that she failed to disclose the
information because she misunderstood the question.  She also argues that she did not deliberately
make a false statement to a government investigator in her November 1, 2006 interview, when she
explained that she had omitted the charge from her July 8, 2006 application because the final
disposition of the charge had occurred at a later date.  The charge had in fact been adjudicated and
disposed of on June 27, 2006.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred.
The Judge had the opportunity to consider Applicant’s explanations as to why she failed to
disclose the information in question.  The Judge was not bound, as a matter of law, to accept or reject
Applicant’s explanations.  The Judge considered Applicant’s explanations in light of the record
evidence as a whole, and concluded there was a sufficient basis to find that Applicant’s omissions
were deliberate and intentional.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  On this record, the
Judge’s findings of deliberate falsification are sustainable.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  His ultimate
unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline E is also sustainable.1
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security 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
3
Signed: James E. Moody      
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board