KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline H
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-08147,a1
DATE: 09/10/2008
DATE: September 10, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-08147
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On October 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
Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On May 30, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial evidence; and whether the Judge erred in his application of the
pertinent mitigating conditions.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following sustainable findings of fact: Applicant is a security assistant
employed by a defense contractor.  In November 2004, Applicant submitted a security clearance
application (SCA), in which he provided information that was not correct.  He answered “no” to
Question 27, which inquired as to whether he had used illegal drugs during the previous seven years.
He also answered “no” to Question 30, which inquired as to delinquent debts over ninety days old.
In fact, Applicant had smoked marijuana the previous March, while employed as a background
investigator for another government contractor.  He also had three delinquent debts which were more
than ninety days old.  In addition, in March 2004 Applicant was fired from a job as a background
investigator for a government contractor for having falsified two investigative reports.  
We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record and conclude that his material
findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence.  See Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.
(Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”) We have also
examined the Judge’s decision, paying close attention to his analysis of Applicant’s false statements.
The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately provided false information is sustainable.
Furthermore, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate
adverse security clearance decision.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).
See also 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
Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 5.  See Department of the
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffery D. Billett    
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody     
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board