FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline H; Guideline G; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge was required to consider Applicant’s explanations for his omissions from
his security clearance application but he was not obligated to accept to those explanations. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-00574.a1
DATE: 07/24/2009
DATE: July 24, 2009
In Re:
----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-00574
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 15, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
2
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct),
Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) 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 April 23, 2009, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for
a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in his conclusion that Applicant had deliberately
omitted information concerning his criminal record, alcohol use and drug use in response to two
questions on his security clearance application—contending that he did not understand the nature
of the questions, and that he lacked knowledge about the law and technicalities of security clearance
procedures.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or
contrary to law.
A review of the decision indicates that the Judge reasonably considered Applicant’s
explanation in the context of the record as a whole. Decision at 2-4 and 8-10.  The Judge was
required to consider Applicant’s explanations and did so.  However, he was not obligated to accept
Applicant’s explanations.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-12089 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 10, 2006).  The
Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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 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 clearance decision is sustainable.
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: Jeffrey D. Billett         
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
3
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board