KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant’s security concerns arose from his use and possession of methamphetamine.
Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Judge erred in his findings of fact or in his application of
the mitigating conditions.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-10008.a1
DATE: 12/29/2009
DATE: December 29, 2009
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-10008
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Kathleen E. Voelker, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 12, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and
Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 25, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
The Judge’s finding in Applicant’s favor under SOR allegation 1.b is not at issue in this appeal.1
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge made harmful errors in
his findings of fact; whether the Judge erred in his application of the Guidelines H and J mitigating
conditions; and whether the Judge erred in his whole person analysis.   Finding no harmful error, we1
affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant used methamphetamine
ten times between May 2005 and January 2007. His use was knowing and deliberate.  In 2007 he
mailed $200 to his brother in another state and asked him to mail Applicant some methamphetamine.
His brother mailed him 1.9 grams of methamphetamine.  The shipment was discovered by law
enforcement personnel.  Applicant was charged with a felony.  Later that year he pled guilty to an
amended charge of illegal possession methamphetamine.  He was sentenced to 24 months probation
with deferred judgment (in part).  Applicant’s wife discouraged his use of methamphetamine but he
disregarded her advice because he believed he did not have a drug problem, would not get addicted
and would not get caught.
On appeal, Applicant alleges errors in the Judge’s findings of fact.  None of the alleged errors
are outcome determinative.  Therefore, none of them would be harmful even if the Board agreed with
Applicant’s assertions. 
The Judge’s discussion of the mitigating conditions and the whole person concept reflect a
reasonable analysis of the sustainable findings of security concern and the Board sees no reason to
disturb them.
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 or continue eligibility for a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this
record.  Decision at 12.  “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 decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple       
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board