KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s actions demonstrate poor judgment,
unreliability and dishonesty are sustainable in light of the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-01466.a1
DATE: 04/30/2008
DATE: April 30, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01466
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 July 24, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) 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
Decision at 6.1
Id.2
2
requested a hearing.  On January 18, 2008, after the hearing, 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 raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s failure to mitigate the
Guideline E security concerns is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we
affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had shoplifted at least eight times during the last 15 years.
The incidents included the taking of a duplicate key in 2002, the taking of a set of scuba lenses in
2003, and the failure to accurately report to cashiers all the items that had been selected for purchase.
Additionally, Applicant had received and kept furniture he had not paid for.  At the hearing,
Applicant had recanted his answers to previous interrogatories, and had provided information not
provided either during a prior interview by a government agent or in his answers to interrogatories.1
 The Board has examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole.  The Judge’s
conclusion that “[Applicant’s] actions show poor judgment, unreliability, dishonesty, and an
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations” is sustainable.   Furthermore, the Judge has2
drawn “a rational connection between the facts found” under Guideline E and his adverse decision.
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)).  “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  Accordingly,
the Judge’s adverse decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett         
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields      
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board