KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had 1. Two 1999 criminal
convictions (one for marijuana possession and one for tampering with evidence) 2. A bench
warrant for his arrest in 2005, and 3 falsified a 2006 security clearance application.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-07219.a1
DATE: 05/16/2008
DATE: May 16, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-07219
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 September 18, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline H.  That favorable finding is not at issue on appeal.1
As part of his appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of additional explanations about his conduct2
and circumstances.  The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
2
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct),
Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be
decided on the written record.  On February 11, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative
Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.   Applicant timely1
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 J and E security concerns is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   Finding no error,2
we affirm.
The Judge made the following sustainable findings: In 1999, Applicant pleaded guilty to a
charge of tampering with evidence, and paid a fine and court cost of approximately $300.  In 1999,
he was found guilty of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and fined $500.  In 2005 a
bench warrant for Applicant’s arrest was issued due to his failure to pay that $500 fine.  In 2006,
Applicant falsified a Questionnaire for National Security Positions when he stated that he had used
marijuana once in August of 1999, when he had in fact used marijuana on a weekly basis from 1993
to 2001 and on a monthly basis from 2001 to 2002.
    
 The Board has examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole and concludes
that the Judge has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found” under Guidelines J and 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
3
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board