KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant deliberately omitted her most recent methamphetamine
use from her security clearance application. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-02421.a1
DATE: 03/03/2010
DATE: March 3, 2010
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-02421
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Samuel Bluck, Esq.
The Judge made favorable findings for Applicant under paragraph 1 (Guideline H) and subparagraphs 2(a) and1
3(c).  Those findings are not at issue in this appeal.
  
Applicant testified as to her understanding that the charges were dismissed due to an unlawful search and2
seizure.  Tr. at 112.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 29, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline
E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 10,
2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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.  Finding no error, we affirm.1
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant has a history of
methamphetamine use, starting in about 1999.  Her use increased until it became a daily habit in
2002 and 2003.  She subsequently entered a drug rehabilitation facility, leaving it in January 2004.
She participated in an aftercare program for two months thereafter, though she returned to
methamphetamine use.  In February 2006 Applicant was arrested for, inter alia, possession of
methamphetamine.  This charge was dismissed.   2
In February 2007 Applicant completed her security clearance application (SCA).  One
question asked if Applicant had used any controlled substances within the previous 7 years.
Applicant mentioned her methamphetamine use from 2001 until 2003.  She omitted her subsequent
use following her participation in the drug rehabilitation program.  Applicant included the following
comment in her answer: “I was using for a long time and didn’t stop until receiving help in a
rehabilitation center[.]” Decision at 3; Government Exhibit 1, SCA dated February 2, 2007, at 38.
The Judge concluded that this omission of her post-treatment methamphetamine use was deliberate.
In her brief, Applicant cites to previous decisions by the Appeal Board which she contends
support her case on appeal.  We conclude that these cases are distinguishable from Applicant’s and
do not support a conclusion that the Judge’s decision is erroneous.  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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “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).
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael D. Hipple         
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board