KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately omitted from his security clearance
application reference to eight alcohol related offenses was sustainable in light of the totality of
the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-16563.a1
DATE: 01/22/2009
DATE: January 22, 2009
In Re:
------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-16563
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nichole L. Noel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Will A. Gunn, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On April 7, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline
E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 25, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
“[T]here are six questions on the [SCA] concerning an applicant’s police record.  The first four, to include1
alcohol-related charges and convictions, are not limited by times.  Only the last two, concerning military convictions and
any other convictions or criminal matters not mentioned in the previous questions, are limited by time.  The question
concerning alcohol incidents clearly state[s] an applicant should list any arrests or convictions that are alcohol-related.
A reasonable and educated person like Applicant with a Master’s degree would know that the alcohol-related question
is not limited by time.  A person with eight driving while intoxicated offenses in his past more reasonably would not want
that information revealed when applying for access to classified information.”  Decision at 7. 
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in his formal finding against Applicant as to subparagraph 1(l) of the SOR2
(“You continue to consume alcohol despite your alcohol related arrests and treatment.”)  He points to record evidence
that he ceased consuming alcohol in June 2007 and believes that the Judge’s formal finding is inconsistent with the
evidence in the record.  The Board has considered this argument.  While the Judge could have modified the allegation
to conform to the evidence, under the facts of this case his failure to do so has not prejudiced Applicant.  Applicant  also
argues that the Judge erred in his formal finding against Applicant on subparagraph 1(k) (“You received alcohol
counseling at [counseling center] in July of 2002.”), contending that this is inconsistent with an adverse clearance
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence was erroneous; whether the Judge erred in concluding that Applicant had deliberately
falsified his security clearance application (SCA); and whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant holds a Master’s degree
in computer science and has been a program manager, or deputy program manager, for a defense
contractor for over three years.  Applicant was arrested, charged, and convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol on eight occasions between January 1984 and March 1991.  In addition, he was
convicted of driving while intoxicated in March and again in May of 2002.  As a result of this last
incident, he was directed to attend alcohol counseling, which he completed in 2002.  The counselor
told Applicant to stop drinking, but he continued to drink moderately.  The SCA required Applicant
to list any arrests for alcohol-related offenses.  Applicant listed the two incidents in 2002, but he did
not list the eight incidents in the 1980s and 1990s.  Applicant stopped consuming alcohol in June
2007, following an injurious automobile wreck.  
Applicant takes issue with the Judge’s weighing of certain pieces of evidence, e.g.,
Applicant’s job accomplishments and community service.  See Directive ¶ E2.8(f).  However, a
Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he specifically states
otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  “An applicant’s
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different
interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or
reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”  See  ISCR Case
No. 07-10454 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 12, 2008).
Furthermore, the Judge’s finding as to the deliberate nature of Applicant’s omissions on the
SCA is sustainable, viewed in light of the record as a whole .  The Board concludes that  the Judge1
has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance
decision, both as regards the Guidelines G and E mitigating conditions and the whole-person
factors.   See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also Motor Vehicle Mfrs.2
decision.  However, viewed in context of the record as a whole, which includes evidence that Applicant continued to
drink after his counselor advised him to abstain, the Judge’s formal finding is not error.  
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 security to grant a security clearance for Applicant” is
sustainable on this record, in light of the standard set forth in 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: Jean E. Smallin                                             
               Jean E. Smallin
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