KEYWORD: Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant and wife made inconsistent and otherwise
unbelievable statements, including Applicant’s statement to the OPM investigator, is supported
by the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-25528.a1
DATE: 11/13/2009
DATE: November 13, 2009
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25528
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 April 10, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of
“Applicant’s testimony was evasive and inconsistent at times.  I . . . find that some of his testimony was1
intentionally false.  Of particular note was the testimony of Applicant and his wife that they had no memory of the 1988
incident in [Foreign Country] . . . It is not believable that neither party could remember [Applicant] striking his pregnant
wife while she was holding their two-year-old child, causing her to fall to the ground, and dragging her along the side
of the road.” Decision at 6.  Additionally, the Board has considered Applicant’s description of an incident in 2007, given
to a policeman on the scene, and compared it with Applicant’s later description of the same incident to the OPM
investigator.  These documents support the Judge’s conclusion about the mendacity of Applicant’s statement to the OPM
official.   Government Exhibit 2, Personal Subject Interview dated September 5, 2008; GE 4, Incident Report dated
September 16, 2007.     
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).2
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On August 28, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W.
Loughran 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 denied him due process;
whether the Judge’s credibility determination was erroneous; and whether the Judge’s adverse
security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant is currently employed by a Defense contractor.  He served
in the U.S. military from 1984 until 2004, retiring as an E-7.  Between 1988 until 2007, Applicant
engaged in six instances of domestic violence, though none resulted in prosecution or other
disciplinary action beyond referral to the military Family Advocacy Program at his station or some
anger management classes.  The first instance occurred in July 1988 in a foreign country where
Applicant was assigned, along with his family.  Applicant and his wife argued on the side of a
highway.  Applicant hit, pushed, kicked and shoved his wife, who was pregnant at the time, causing
her to fall to the ground.  He then grabbed her jacket and dragged her along the side of the road.  On
another occasion he shoved her on the ground and pushed her against the house.  In some of the
incidents cited by the Judge, Applicant’s wife was an active participant in the affrays.  
Applicant received numerous awards during his military service, to include the Meritorious
Service Medal, two Commendation Medals, six Good Conduct Medals, and the Bronze Star.
Applicant takes issue with the Judge’s credibility determination.  Specifically, he disagrees
with the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant made an inconsistent statement to the OPM investigator.
The Board has examined the Judge’s evaluation of Applicant’s credibility in light of the record as
a whole and finds no reason to disturb it.  The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant and his wife made
inconsistent and otherwise unbelievable statements, including Applicant’s statement to the OPM
investigator, is supported by the record.   See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  Applicant contends that the1
Judge improperly denied him the opportunity to question a witness about the Lautenberg
Amendment,  which forbids gun ownership or use by persons convicted of domestic violence.  The2
Board construes this to be a contention that the Judge denied Applicant due process.  The record
demonstrates that the Judge admitted a document summarizing the Amendment and its application
3
to the military.  However, the Judge did not permit Applicant to read it aloud during his questioning
of a witness due to lack of relevance.  Tr. at 34.  The Judge’s ruling is sustainable.  Even if there
were error in this ruling, it would be harmless. 
 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 10.  “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).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                 
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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