KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. 
Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge was unbiased.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASE NO: 11-05027.a1
DATE: 11/26/2012
DATE: November 26, 2012
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-05027
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 February 9, 2012, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
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 hearing.  On September 13, 2012, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 failed to consider all of
the record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision. 
1Applicant testified that his employer had not permitted him to miss work in order to attend the court-ordered
alcohol treatment and, when he had attended the program anyway, terminated his employment.  “Q: So, he told you that
you were fired?  A: He says I have to let you go.  Q: So when you wrote . . . that the reason for leaving is you were laid
off from [employer], that was a false statement, is that right?  A: Yes, yes it was.  Q: Okay.  And you wrote that you
weren’t fired, that was also a false statement, is that right?  A: Yes, I will agree on that.  Q: Now, why did you lie on it?
A: Because it is embarrassing to be fired.”  Tr. at 58-59.  
2Although the Judge stated that Applicant did not intend to falsify the SCA concerning his police record, at the
end of the Decision he entered formal findings against Applicant for all Guideline E allegations, including these.
Reading the Decision as a whole, we believe that the Judge intended to clear Applicant on the Guideline E allegations
regarding his police record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-01075 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 26, 2011)(To be a security concern,
an error or omission on a SCA must be deliberately false).  We conclude that his formal findings to the contrary are an
inadvertent error.  Given the Judge’s sustainable adverse finding concerning the job termination, the error in question
is harmless.  
2
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: During his teenage years, and into
his adult life, Applicant committed a series of criminal offenses, many involving alcohol.  In
addition to charges of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI), Applicant was
also charged, at various times, with assault, on one occasion a felony assault.  As a result of his most
recent OUI, Applicant was required by the court to attend an inpatient alcohol treatment program.
Applicant has stopped drinking and his wife helps him maintain his sobriety.  His family has
provided him with stability.
In completing his security clearance application (SCA), Applicant made some false
statements.  For example, he denied having been arrested; having been charged with a felony; or
having been ordered to seek alcohol counseling or treatment.  He also stated that he had been laid
off from a job, denying that he had ever been fired or had ever left a job under unfavorable
circumstances.  Applicant contended that he had mis-read the questions about his police record or
had forgotten about some of the incidents.  However, he admitted to having knowingly provided a
false answer to the question about his job termination, stating that he was embarrassed to have been
fired.1    
In the Analysis, the Judge found in Applicant’s favor under Guideline J for the alcohol and
assault offenses, concluding that Applicant had made significant changes to his conduct, thereby
demonstrating rehabilitation.  However, he found against Applicant regarding a Guideline J
allegation that he had falsified his SCA.  Under Guideline E, the Judge concluded that Applicant had
not intentionally falsified the SCA questions about his criminal history, accepting as credible
Applicant’s explanations of having misread the questions, etc.  However, the Judge stated that he
could not enter a favorable finding regarding Applicant’s false statement about his job termination.
Noting Applicant’s testimony that he had intentionally failed to provide correct information on this
matter, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to demonstrate mitigation, given the relative
recency of the misconduct.2  
Applicant cites to record evidence of his military service and other things that he believes
support his case for a clearance.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the
record, and Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to have rebutted that presumption.  See, e.g., ISCR
3
Case No. ISCR Case No. 11-06622 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2012).  Applicant requests that his case be
remanded to a different Judge for a new decision.  To the extent that he is arguing that the Judge in
his case lacked impartiality, there is a presumption that a Judge is impartial.  An applicant who
contends that a Judge is biased against him has a heavy burden on appeal.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
08-03798 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 21, 2010).  Applicant has cited to nothing in the record to impugn the
Judge’s impartiality.  Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge was
impartial.  
The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  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 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