KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is no merit to Applicant’s contention that he was limited to providing yes or no
answers in his response to the government’s FORM, or that he was otherwise denied an
opportunity to submit matters in his own behalf.  Applicant also challenges the Judge’s finding
that he left the scene of an accident.  The record evidence supports the Judge’s finding on this
matter.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 10-06195.a1
DATE: 10/04/2011
DATE: October 4, 2011
In Re:
------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-06195
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 January 21, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
1The record shows that Applicant provided answers to DOHA interrogatories and to the SOR but that he did
not respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). 
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On July 29, 2011, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge David M. White 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 Applicant was denied due process;
whether certain of the Judge’s findings were supported by substantial record evidence; whether the
Judge erred in his application of the mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we
affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor.  Applicant
previously worked for a state-licensed health care facility.  During the course of this employment,
in 2009, he was driving home from work and struck a pedestrian while turning a corner.  Applicant
left the scene of the accident without providing contact information and without rendering
assistance.  He was charged with hit-and-run, a felony.  
During his subsequent court appearance, pursuant to a plea agreement, Applicant pled nolo
contendere to misdemeanor hit-and-run.  The court sentenced him to three years probation, fines and
fees totaling $160, 30 days community service, and restitution to the victim.  Subsequently, the state
department of social services ordered that Applicant be precluded from contacting clients and
excluded from the licensed treatment facility due to his criminal offense.  
The Judge found that Applicant had “submitted no other evidence tending to establish good
judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability.”1  The Judge also stated that he was unable to evaluate
Applicant’s credibility, demeanor, or character in person, because Applicant had elected a decision
on the written record.  Decision at 3. 
In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s offense raised security concerns under
Guidelines J and E.  He also concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion
as to mitigation.  In the whole-person analysis, he stated:
Applicant is a mature, accountable adult who voluntarily left the scene of an accident
after hitting a pedestrian with his car and causing her substantial injuries.  There was
no reason for him to have done so other than to avoid responsibility and
accountability for his own conduct.  This demonstrates a lack of the integrity and
trustworthiness that are fundamental to eligibility for being entrusted with national
security information and sensitive duties.  Decision at 7.
Applicant contends that he was not given a sufficient chance to present evidence in
mitigation.  He states that he received documents from DOHA that permitted only yes or no answers,
2This document is included in Item 6, Applicant’s answers to interrogatories.  It states in part that, on the date
in question, Applicant “hit a pedestrian in the street while driving his vehicle and left the scene of the accident without
obtaining the victim’s information or waiting for the police to arrive.  As a factor in aggravation, [Applicant’s] statement
is inconsistent with the police report regarding certain facts.”  
thereby denying him an opportunity to address his conduct in detail. 
The record demonstrates that Applicant’s copy of the FORM was accompanied by a letter
advising him of his right to “submit any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider or
to make any objections you may have as to the information in the file.”  Applicant returned a receipt
for the FORM dated March 15, 2011.  Applicant did not provide a response to the FORM.  The
record does contain Applicant’s answers to DOHA interrogatories.  Attached to the record as Item
6, this exhibit includes, among other things, a written letter by Applicant addressing his criminal
offense.  There is no merit to Applicant’s contention that he was limited to providing yes or no
answers or that he was otherwise denied an opportunity to submit matters in his own behalf.
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he left the scene of the accident.  We review
challenged findings to determine if they are supported by substantial record evidence.  See  Directive
¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”)
Applicant’s admissions to the SOR and other evidence, including a copy of the court record of the
case history, a copy of the FBI record of Applicant’s conviction, and a copy of the pleading
submitted by the state licensing division to the state department of social services,2 support the
Judge’s finding on this matter.  
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).
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