KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of fact are sustainable and support his ultimate adverse
conclusions.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-00568.a1
DATE: 10/22/2010
DATE: October 22, 2010
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-00568
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 March 18, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of
1In addition to the false answers described above, the SOR  alleged the non-judicial punishment action (¶ 1(a))
and another false statement regarding Applicant’s purported addiction to pornography and his having sought psychiatric
treatment for the same (¶ 1(c)).  The Judge found in Applicant’s favor for those allegations.    
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On August 17, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F.
Foreman 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 erred in finding that his
omissions to his security clearance applications (SCA) were deliberate.  Consistent with the
following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant served in the U.S. Air
Force, retiring in 2005.  Earlier, in 2000, he had received non-judicial punishment under Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for knowing possession of child pornography.  This
disciplinary action was the result of evidence found during a search by criminal investigators of
Applicant’s personal computer.  
After the search, Applicant consulted with a psychologist regarding his concerns about his
internet viewing habits.  Soon after this, Applicant visited a psychiatrist, due to stress and depression
regarding the criminal investigation, his father’s death, and the breakup of his marriage.  
In 2003, Applicant completed a SCA.  He answered “no” to a question inquiring if he had
consulted a mental health professional within the previous seven years.  He also answered “no” to
a question inquiring if, within the previous seven years, he had been punished under the UCMJ, to
include non-judicial punishment.  Both of these answers were false.
In 2004, after his security manager pointed out these omissions, Applicant submitted a
document correcting the errors in his SCA.  In 2005, anticipating retirement, Applicant applied for
jobs as a policeman and as a correctional officer.  He was rejected, because he did not disclose his
non-judicial punishment to his prospective employers.  
Later in 2005, before his retirement, Applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  The
psychiatrist concluded that (1) Applicant did not have a mental disorder and (2) his records were not
sufficient to clearly substantiate knowing possession of child pornography.  In September 2008,
Applicant submitted another SCA.  He answered “no” to a question inquiring if he had consulted
a mental health professional during the previous seven years.  This answer was false.  Applicant’s
omissions on his 2003 and 2008 SCAs were alleged in the SOR as Guideline E security concerns.1
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge found that the “no” answers described
above were deliberate.  The Judge stated that, when he completed the SCAs in question, Applicant
was an experienced NCO, had worked through the security clearance process before, and had
previously held a clearance.  The Judge also considered Applicant’s failure to advise his prospective
3
civilian employers in 2005 about his non-judicial punishment.  Although this conduct was not
alleged, the Judge stated that he considered it on the issue of Applicant’s credibility, among other
things.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03250 at n. 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2007).  Viewed in light of the
record as a whole, the Judge’s findings of deliberate falsification are sustainable.
   The record supports a conclusion 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). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                    
Jean E. Smallin
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