KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s adverse conclusions under Guideline E are sustainable based on this
record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-19963.a1
DATE: 03/07/2008
DATE: March 7, 2008
In Re:
--------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19963
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 28, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On November 28, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that
Applicant knowingly provided false information on his security clearance application (SCA) and to
an interviewer; and whether the Judge’s failure to mitigate the Guideline F and E security concerns
was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous unresolved debts.  He found that Applicant
stated “no” on his SCA when asked if he had debts that had been delinquent for 90 and 180 days
respectively and that these answers were not true.  The Judge found that Applicant had been charged
with a felony offense arising from his misuse of another person’s credit card.  Applicant answered
“no” to a question on his SCA inquiring as to whether he had ever been charged or convicted of a
felony offense, and during an interview he failed to disclose the full extent of this misuse.
The Board has examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record has a whole.  The Judge’s
conclusion that Applicant knowingly provided false information is sustainable.  Furthermore, the
Judge has drawn  “a rational connection between the facts found”under Guideline E and his adverse
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, the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline E is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor
contrary to law.  In light of this holding, the Board need not address the Guideline F security
concerns.
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision 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