1
KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline H
DIGEST: The Directive presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines
and an applicant’s security eligibility.  Security clearance determinations are not limited to
consideration of conduct during duty hours.  A good security record is not a bar to an adverse
decision.  The scope and methods of clearance investigations are, in general, outside the
jurisdiction of the Hearing Office and the Appeal Board.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 11-05684.a1
DATE: 09/24/2013
DATE: September 24, 2013
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-05684
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
November 21, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline
H (Drug Involvement) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On June 17, 2013,
2
after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Marc
E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
In his appeal brief, Applicant states that he is very disappointed with the result in his case
and asks that the Board reconsider the Judge’s adverse decision.  In support of his request, he argues
that he and his family are still receiving counseling and that he has a stronger support system in
place.  He also argues that alcoholism is a disease, that there are many functioning alcoholics, and
that there is no connection between alcoholism and being a security threat.  Finally, he asserts that
the investigator should have spoken with his co-workers and neighbors of AA associates concerning
his integrity and dedication to his work.
The Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct
under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility.  Security clearance
determinations are not limited to consideration of work performance or conduct during duty hours.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-08113 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 15, 2008).  The federal government need not
wait until an applicant actually mishandles or fails to properly handle or safeguard classified
information before it can deny or revoke access to such information. See Adams v. Laird, 420 F.2d
230, 238-239 (D.C. Cir. 1969). The absence of security violations does not bar or preclude an
adverse security clearance decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-08113, supra.
In general, the scope and methods of personnel security investigations are outside the scope
of review of the Hearing Office Judge and the Board.  Moreover, even if an applicant believes that
an investigation was incomplete or flawed, he is not without recourse in DOHA proceedings.  The
applicant can present evidence, either at a hearing or in response to a File of Relevant Material
(FORM), that is relevant and material to his response to the SOR allegations and evidence presented
by Department Counsel, or supportive of applicant’s burden of persuasion under the Directive.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-05854 at3 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2004).
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The presence of some mitigating evidence
does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.  As the trier of
fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence
outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-07810 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug.
5, 2013).
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Additionally,
it does not review a case de novo.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge
3
examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision.  “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).  Therefore, the
Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Member, 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