KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant challenges five passages of the Judge’s decision regarding his marijuana
use.  The challenged language is reasonably consistent with Applicant’s admissions regarding
his marijuana use and is a reasonable characterization of the record evidence.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 10-02475.a1
DATE: 08/15/2011
DATE: August 15, 2011
In Re:
--------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-02475
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
J. A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 27, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of 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 decision on the administrative record.  On April 29,
2011, after the considering the record, 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his findings of
fact.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm.
Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusions regarding
Applicant’s 2008 falsification of a security clearance application.  He does challenge five passages
from the Judge’s decision regarding his marijuana use.
Three of the five challenged passages are from the synopsis at the beginning of the decision.
It is well settled that, absent unusual circumstances, any errors in the synopsis are unlikely to be
harmful.  See, e.g.,  ADP Case No. 07-01610 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2008), ISCR Case No. 06-23384
at 2 (App. Bd. Nov 23, 2007) and ISCR Case No. 06-03606 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2007).
Furthermore, in this case, the challenged language is reasonably consistent with Applicant’s
admissions regarding his marijuana use in his response to the SOR.
One of the remaining challenges relies on new evidence which Applicant submits on appeal.
The Board cannot consider new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
The final passage that is challenged is a reasonable characterization of the record evidence
regarding Applicant’s history of marijuana use.  Applicant has failed to demonstrate error by the
Judge.
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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 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).  Therefore, the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board