KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s spouse works for the Lithuanian government as does his sister-in-law. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 04-11904.a1
DATE: 07/10/2009
DATE: July, 10, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-11904
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Daniel Conway, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 14, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline B
(Foreign Influence), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), of Department of Defense Directive
The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline J and E, as well as his favorable finding under the first1
allegation of Guideline B, are not at issue in this appeal.
“. . . I purchase annually Lithuanian health insurance for $400.”  Tr. at 83.2
2
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 28, 2009,
after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge made factual errors and
whether the Judge erred in her application of the Guideline B mitigating conditions.   Finding no1
harmful error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant is a Defense contractor working in Lithuania.  He is married
to a Lithuanian woman who works for the Lithuanian government.  His wife has a sister who also
works for the Lithuanian government.  Applicant’s wife contacts her sister by e-mail once a month
and by phone once every three or four months.  Applicant’s spouse has two grown children who live
in Lithuania.  In holding against Applicant, the Judge noted the Lithuanian citizenship of Applicant’s
wife, her sister, and her children; his wife’s and sister’s employment by the Lithuanian government;
and that he lives in a house owned by his wife, giving him a financial interest in Lithuania.  The
Judge also noted that “Applicant has not shown that his sister-in-law’s work . . . does not have
military or defense implications.”  Decision at 15.    
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings are based
on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn
from the record.  Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the
case.  He contends that the Judge erred in finding that he pays $400 a month for health insurance,
rather than $400 annually, as he testified.   The Board notes that, in the Findings of Fact section of2
her decision, the Judge correctly stated that Applicant’s premium was $400 annually.  The erroneous
statement was contained in the Analysis section. Decision at 7, 16.  In light of the entirety of the
record evidence, this error is harmless.  See ISCR 01-23362 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006); ISCR Case No.
03-09915 (App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2004); ISCR Case No. 01-11192 (App. Bd. Aug. 26, 2002).  After
reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  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
Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 18.  See also
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.’”).
3
 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                      
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board