KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-00898.a1
DATE: 03/25/2011
DATE: March 25, 2011
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-00898
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 4, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
2
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline
E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
December 30, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 did not properly analyze
the pertinent mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.
Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an employee of a
Defense contractor.  He served in the U.S. Navy from 1989 until 2001.  He served in the Naval
Reserves in 2002.  He is married and has two children.  He has held a security clearance since 1990.
Applicant used marijuana in high school during his senior year.  He also purchased and used
it on an intermittent basis from 2002 until 2007.  He used Ecstasy and Mushrooms a “few times”
after leaving the Navy.  
In November 21, 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.
He failed to appear in court.  
In completing security clearance applications (SCA) in 2003 and 2007, Applicant provided
false answers concerning his drug use and his drug-related arrest.  
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling $16,000.  Some of the debts are for tuition
bills that he could not pay while attending technical school.  He has paid some debts not listed in the
SOR.  In 2007, he had a wage garnishment for his 2003 state and federal taxes.  He has not paid any
other debts in the SOR.  
Applicant is searching for debt consolidation plans and has sent letters to several of his
creditors to inquire about the status of the debts.  He has received no credit counseling.  He enjoys
a good reputation for being hard working and reliable.
Applicant contends that the Judge either did not consider all of the record evidence or mis-
weighed the evidence.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the
record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01735 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2010).  Applicant has not
rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.  Neither has he
demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to apply the mitigating conditions which are
pertinent to his case.  However, Applicant’s argument is premised on the assumption that the Judge
erred in her consideration or weighing of the record evidence.  The underlying assumption is invalid
and, thus, Applicant’s argument fails.  
3
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,’” both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors.  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: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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