KEYWORD: Guideline H
DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged credibility determination is based on a reasonable
interpretation of the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-04596.a1
DATE: 10/26/2011
DATE: October 26, 2011
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-04596
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Philip J. Katauskas, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Sheldon I. Cohen, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 23, 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
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 29, 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 and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant works for a Government
contractor, maintaining a personnel database.  He served in the Army from 1985 to 1993.  He enjoys
an excellent reputation for the quality of his work performance and his reliability.
On a Saturday evening in 2007, Applicant attended a social event at a Veterans of Foreign
Wars (VFW) post.  He met a woman who invited him to a party.  He left the VFW post and
accompanied the woman to the party, which was held in the basement of a home.  People were
playing cards, shooting pool, and smoking cigars.   
The next Monday, Applicant was required to submit a urine sample as part of a random
screening for drug use.  Applicant’s came back positive for cocaine.  He requested a re-test, which
also yielded a positive result for that drug.
Applicant’s employer suggested that he participate in counseling through the employee
assistance program.  A counselor told him that he might be able to keep his job if he enrolled in a
drug program.  Applicant chose not do so, believing that it would be tantamount to an admission of
illegal drug use.  Applicant’s employer subsequently fired him.
Applicant denies having used any illegal drugs or substances.  He stated that he left the party
because he began feeling strange–“hot,” “sweaty,” and “out of sorts.”  He stated that he had never
felt that way before.  He went home alone.  When he got home, he called another woman and asked
her to come to his apartment and “hang out.”  When she arrived at his apartment, he told her that he
thought someone had spiked his drink.  He did not seek medical attention.
During his security clearance interview, Applicant told the investigator that some of the
people at the party had been smoking marijuana.  
In his analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant’s testimony that he had left the party feeling
ill was not consistent with his subsequently having called a friend to come “hang out” with him.  He
also stated that Applicant’s hearing testimony that no one was using drugs at the party was not
consistent with his prior statement to the investigator that people there had been using marijuana.
Although the Judge acknowledged evidence favorable to Applicant, such his good work
performance and the isolated nature of his drug use, he concluded that Applicant’s testimony was
not believable in certain respects and that this undercut Applicant’s case for mitigation.
3
In his brief, Applicant contends that the inconsistencies cited by the Judge were relatively
minor and that they did not detract from the favorable evidence which he had presented.
We have considered Applicant’s brief in light of the record.  The Judge’s credibility
determination is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence.  See, e.g.,  ISCR
Case No. 07-17076 at 3 (App. Bd. May 11, 2011).  Applicant’s appeal brief argues for an alternative
interpretation, but it is not sufficient to undermine the Judge’s conclusions about Applicant’s
credibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-03380 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 27, 2011).   
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.”
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