KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately omitted from his security clearance
application information about his marriage is sustainable.  Applicant failed to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 09-07647.a1
DATE: 04/13/2011
DATE: April 13, 2011
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-07647
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel 
FOR APPLICANT
John F. Mardula, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 14, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline
B (Foreign Influence), Guideline C (Foreign Preference), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On January 13, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera
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’s conclusions under
Guideline E were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law and whether the Judge’s whole-person
analysis was erroneous.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines B, C, and F are not at issue in this appeal.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a software engineer
working for a Government contractor.  He recently applied for a position as a linguist and seeks a
clearance in order to qualify for that job.
Applicant was born and raised in Iraq, but he came to the U.S. in the early 1990s.  He
attended college in this country and became a naturalized citizen in the early 2000s.  He met his wife
while the two were growing up in Iraq.  In the early 2000s, while Applicant was working for a U.S.
contractor in that country, the two began dating and they married a year later.  He took her to
another Middle Eastern country to apply for her entry into the U.S.  Applicant then returned to the
U.S. to take a position with another contractor, leaving his wife in Iraq.  
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) in 2004, after his marriage.  He
answered “never married” to a question about his marital status, which was incorrect in light of his
recent wedding.  The Judge found that Applicant had not corroborated his claim to have attempted
to correct the error.  Applicant also failed to disclose delinquent student loans on this same SCA.
In 2008, while working for a U.S. contractor in Iraq, Applicant was involved in personality
conflicts with other employees.  He was fired due to creating a “hostile work environment.”
Decision at 5.  After being informed of the termination, Applicant was instructed to report to “a
company area” for outprocessing and to fly out of Iraq through company-made travel arrangements.
Id.  He departed the company base without permission and did not notify his supervisors.  He stayed
away for about 20 days with an Iraqi friend.  He made his own travel arrangements for returning to
the U.S.  He failed to return his U.S. embassy badge and his DoD identification badge after he was
terminated.  He used these badges to travel outside of Iraq and to return to the U.S.  
Applicant contends that the record did not support the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s
omission of his marriage was deliberate.  In evaluating whether the Government has presented
substantial evidence regarding the deliberate nature of a false statement or an omission, the Judge
must examine the statement or omission in light of the record as a whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
08-07998 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 12, 2009).  In this case, we note the Judge’s findings (1) that
Applicant had not corroborated his claim to have corrected the omission and (2) that he had also
omitted required information on another question of the SCA.  We also find persuasive Department
Counsel’s argument in his reply brief that Applicant’s having recently married an Iraqi citizen who,
at the time he completed the SCA, lived in Iraq was a matter which he might have wished to keep
from U.S. authorities.  Considering the record as a whole, the Judge’s conclusion about the
deliberate nature of Applicant’s omission is sustainable.
The SOR also alleged (1) that Applicant was fired from a previous employment for creating
a hostile work environment and (2) that he did not follow company procedures when he was
terminated from employment.  Applicant argues that, in addressing these allegations, the Judge
failed to consider all of the record evidence or that he mis-weighed the evidence.  For example, he
asserts that the Judge did not discuss whether Applicant was responsible for the hostile work
environment attributed to his organization.  Applicant points to numerous laudatory comments
contained in awards and commendations that he had received.  He also asserts that the Judge failed
to take into account Applicant’s evidence that his employer did not treat him fairly in terminating
him.    
We note record evidence, however, which supports the Judge’s adverse conclusions
regarding Applicant’s service to the employer.  Government Exhibit (GE) 2, an e-mail
communication from the Operations Manager of Applicant’s employer, contains a description of
Applicant’s conduct:
Apparently [Applicant] is still causing the problems and disruption that people have
mentioned before. [A and B] seem to like him, but when they’re not around, the word
is that he openly talks about calling the White House to tell what a terrible job [B]
is doing, things like that.  He got into an argument the other day with [C] . . . because
he didn’t get his computer fixed as quickly as [Applicant] wanted.  Then he got into
an argument over the same thing with [D].  He has been threatening to e-mail an
Assistant Secretary of State to complain about the injustice of the issue.  
Moreover, GE 3 contains a Memorandum concerning hostile work environment, dated October 31,
2008.  This exhibit states that Applicant’s “behavior had become erratic, and that he had made
insensitive ethnic and religious comments.”  This document acknowledges that other employees may
also have contributed to the morale problems in the organization.  However, it describes Applicant’s
conduct as “irrational and unprofessional.”  It describes the work environment as “intolerable and
getting worse.”  
We also note GE 4, E-mail, dated November 2, 2008, to the effect that, upon being fired,
Applicant refused company travel arrangements and left the area with an active CAC, embassy
badge, and passport.  The e-mail stated that a representative of the employer was “looking for him,
discretely to bring him in” but, if that failed, it would be necessary to notify the Embassy so that it
could put out an “APB” on Applicant.  GE 4 constitutes substantial evidence that, after being
terminated, Applicant maintained U.S. identification documents and went missing in an area in
which the U.S. was involved in military operations, and it raises serious security concerns.
Considered in light of the Judge’s findings of fact and the record as a whole, and taking into account
the favorable evidence in the record, the Judge’s adverse conclusions under Guideline E are
supportable.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record
evidence.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01735 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2010).  Neither has he
demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  
Concerning the whole-person factors, the Judge considered evidence favorable to Applicant,
such as his service to the U.S. under dangerous conditions, and he made favorable findings for three
of the Guidelines alleged in the SOR.  However, his adverse findings under Guideline E are
sustainable based on the record that was before him.  The Judge’s whole person analysis complies
with the requirements of Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(a), in that he considered the totality of
Applicant’s conduct in reaching his decision.  See ISCR Case No. 08-02464 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 16,
2009). 
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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.” (emphasis added)
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: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board