KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J; Guideline G; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicants assertions regarding his omissions on two security clearance applications
do demonstrate error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07803.a2
DATE: 01/07/2010
DATE: January 7, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07803
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Judge made findings in Applicant’s favor under Guideline F, Guideline J and Guideline G.  Those findings1
are not at issue on appeal.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On January 9, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), 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 June 15, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael
H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30, and Department Counsel subsequently cross-appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶ E3.1.28.   The Appeal Board remanded the case for a new decision on September 21,
2009.  The Judge issued a new decision on October 22, 2009, in which he again denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  1
The Judge found that, on two different security clearance applications, Applicant provided
false answers concerning his prior illegal drug use.  The Judge concluded that Applicant’s answers
were deliberately false and that, viewed in light of the entire record, Applicant had failed to mitigate
the Guideline E security concerns. 
Applicant asserts that omissions concerning drug use on security clearance applications
completed by him in 2005 and 2007 were the result of oversight.  Applicant’s assertions do not
establish error on the part of the Judge.
The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes that 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).  Therefore, the
Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline E is sustainable.
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is affirmed.        
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan              
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                     
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                      
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board