KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s intermittent suggestions at the hearing that he could pass a polygraph did
not obligate the Judge to act nor is is the Judge inaction indicative of error.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 12-02407.a1
DATE: 08/15/2013
DATE: August 15, 2013
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-02407
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
1Tr. at 20, 31-32, and 62.
2
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security  clearance.  On
October 12, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Department Counsel requested a hearing.
On June 11, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals  (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  He
states the following: “. . . when I had a hearing with Judge Edward W. Loughran, I offered to take
a polygraph to proof my innocent [sic], but I did not have that chance.  That polygraph could make
the different [sic] on my outcome of my judgment.”  The record indicates that Applicant mentioned
his willingness to submit to a polygraph on three occasions during the hearing.1  At no time,
however, did he make a specific request of the Judge for an opportunity to take a polygraph. To the
extent Applicant’s brief can be construed as an assertion that the Judge should have afforded
Applicant access to a polygraph, or given him the opportunity to proffer polygraph evidence, he has
failed to demonstrate error.  
Applicant did not make any request of the Judge regarding a polygraph, nor did he ask the
Judge to rule or otherwise comment upon his stated willingness to submit to a polygraph.  The
applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate
burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.
Accordingly, it was incumbent on Applicant to obtain and present evidence he believed would aid
his cause.  To the extent Applicant believed that a polygraph examination would assist his case, it
was his responsibility to obtain one.  Applicant’s intermittent suggestions at the hearing that he
could pass a polygraph did not obligate the Judge to act, nor is the Judge’s inaction indicative of
error.  Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take
timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-12061 at 2 (App. Bd.
Dec. 15, 2009).  Had he desired an opportunity to submit polygraph evidence, it was incumbent
upon Applicant to so state clearly and unambiguously.
The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing
party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  The Board does not
review cases de novo.  
3
The decision of the Judge 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