KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline G; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge found Applicant deliberately omitted two arrests from his security clearance
application.  That finding was reasonable.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 11-04879.a1
DATE: 08/06/2013
DATE: August 6, 2013
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-04879
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Gabriel Pene, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 20, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol
1Lundi Gras is the Monday before Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday).  
2
Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6
(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Department Counel requested a hearing.  On May 24, 2013,
after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert
Robinson Gales 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’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline J are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge found that Applicant has consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication and
passing out, from 1996 until early 2011.  His alcohol consumption has resulted in six incidents
involving either military or civilian authorities.  These incidents are as follows: lewd behavior
during Lundi Gras1 in New Orleans; a barracks scuffle while serving in the military; drunk and
disorderly conduct at a bar; two incidents of DUI; and a 2009 incident in which he was cited for
disorderly conduct while intoxicated at a bar.  Other than a one-day alcohol abuse educational class
that he attended in the military, Applicant has never had alcohol treatment or counseling.
When he completed his security clearance application (SCA), Applicant was asked about any
arrests within the previous seven years.  He was also asked if he had ever been charged with offenses
related to alcohol.  Applicant answered “yes,” listing his two DUI arrests.  He did not list his two
arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct.  Later, when undergoing an interview in connection with
his SCA, Applicant discussed his two DUI arrests but denied any other alcohol-related incidents.
After being asked a second time if he was sure there were no other incidents, Applicant mentioned
the earlier drunk and disorderly incident, though he denied he was arrested or charged with a crime.
During a re-interview, he acknowledged his arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct.
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for job performance.  His supervisors and co-
workers describe him as trustworthy and reliable.  He also enjoys an excellent reputation for his
attention to detail.
The Judge’s Analysis
 As stated above, the Judge entered favorable findings pertaining to the allegations under
Guideline J.  Regarding Guidelines G and E, he concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate
concerns arising from his alcohol consumption and from his omissions on his SCA and during his
interview.  He noted that Applicant had not been abstinent, despite his many incidents of alcohol-
related misconduct.  The Judge concluded that Applicant minimized his problems with alcohol and
that he was unable or unwilling to curb his drinking.  Under Guideline E, the Judge found that
Applicant’s omissions were deliberate.  He noted Applicant’s reputation for being a detail person
3
who does each task “right the first time, every time.”  Decision at 14.  This evidence tends to
undermine Applicant’s evidence that he had simply forgotten about the omitted incidents.  The
Judge also noted that Applicant’s false statements were generally consistent with his pattern of
denying and/or minimizing the extent of his alcohol abuse.  The Judge concluded that the evidence,
viewed as a whole, left him with doubts as to Applicant’s fitness for a clearance.  
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that his omissions were deliberate.  In analyzing
an applicant’s mens rea, a Judge must consider the applicant’s answers in light of the entire record.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-07104 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 25, 2013).  The Judge’s explanation for this
finding was reasonable and was consistent with the record that was before him.  We find no error
in the challenged finding.  
We have considered all of the arguments in Applicant’s appeal brief.  The Judge examined
the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  The 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 Decision is AFFIRMED.       
Signed: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board