KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-08765.a1
DATE: 05/21/2008
DATE: May 21, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-08765
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 November 19, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and
The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR ¶ 1(a) is not at issue in this appeal.  1
2
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On February 14, 2008,
after considering the record, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
We construe Applicant’s appeal as raising the following issue: whether the Judge’s adverse
security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   Finding no error, we1
affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a warehouse specialist
for a defense contractor.  He began using marijuana while in his early teens, smoking it
approximately every other day.  “After he turned 18 in 2001, his use of marijuana varied.  Some
months he used it more frequently, up to ten times, other months only about twice.”  Decision at 2.
He stopped using marijuana in 2003.  When Applicant filled out his security clearance application
in December 2004 (SCA) he responded “no” to question 27, which asked if, within the previous
seven years, he had illegally used any controlled substance, including marijuana.  
In support of his appeal, Applicant has submitted new evidence, which the Board cannot
consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Viewed in light of the record as a whole, the Judge’s decision
that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance” is sustainable.  Decision at 10.  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528
(1988).  ( “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with
the interests of the national security.’”)  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett          
Jeffrey D. Billett
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