KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: Reading the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole, the Board finds no
reason to disturb the Judge’s adverse credibility determination.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-01168.a1
DATE: 04/22/2011
DATE: April 22, 2011
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-01168
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 August 17, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
1Applicant Exhibit B, Court Document, states that the prosecuting attorney declined to file charges because
Applicant had already served one day in jail following his citation on this offense and would not face more time upon
conviction.  
2
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On February 7, 2011, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 erred in his credibility
determination; whether the Judge mis-weighed the record evidence or failed to consider all of the
record evidence; whether the Judge erred in his application of the 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 a 26-year-old employee
for a Defense contractor.  A college graduate, he majored in electrical engineering and electronics
technology.  
Beginning in 2004, Applicant used marijuana approximately twice a week.  He did so in
order to self-medicate chronic anxiety and a consequent speech impediment.  He began treatment
by a physician in 2009, realizing that marijuana use was not a healthy way to deal with his problems.
In June 2006, he was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.  The charges were
dropped after Applicant completed a drug diversion program.  In June 2007, he was cited for
possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.  The court deferred prosecution for one year,
conditioned on Applicant not committing additional offenses.  At the end of the year, the charges
were dropped.  In October 2009, the police stopped him and noticed an open container of alcohol.
On reaching for the container, the policeman discovered marijuana seeds on the floor of the car.
Applicant was arrested for violation of the open container law and for possession of marijuana.  The
charge was later dismissed.1   
In completing his security clearance application (SCA), Applicant was required to (1) list
any arrests by any police officer, sheriff, marshal, or other law enforcement officer; (2) list any
charges involving alcohol or drugs; and (3) describe the extent of his illegal drug use, if any.  For
the first two questions, Applicant neglected to list the 2009 incident.  For the third he stated that he
had used marijuana only between May and June of 2005.  
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider record evidence favorable to him, for
example his testimony as to why he failed to list the 2009 arrest and why he came to provide
inaccurate dates for his marijuana use.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the
evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01735 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2010).
Applicant’s presentation on appeal is not sufficient to rebut this presumption.  Neither is it sufficient
3
to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge had stated that Applicant’s credibility as
to when Applicant stopped using marijuana was undermined by his falsification of the SCA.
Decision at 5.  Applicant challenged this conclusion, arguing that his falsification of the dates during
which he used marijuana was clearly a mere error rather than an intentional falsification.  However,
reading the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole, we find no reason to disturb his
credibility determination.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-00395 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 8, 2010).   
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).  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.”
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
4
Member, Appeal Board