KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  The effect of an adverse
decision is not relevant or material to a clearance adjudication.  A clearance decision is not
punitive in nature.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 13-00546.a1
DATE: 12/02/2013
DATE: December 2, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 13-00546
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 June
5, 2013, 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).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
September 17, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
1The Judge’s favorable findings under SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.g are not at issue in this appeal.  
2
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.1  Consistent with the following, we
affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked in his current job since February 2013 and in his field since 2004.  He
enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his work performance and reliability.  
Most of the Judge’s findings pertained to allegations that he ultimately resolved in
Applicant’s favor.  Regarding the one allegation that he decided against Applicant, the Judge found
that, in December 2012, Applicant attended a holiday party where he consumed five to seven beers.
While driving home, he rear-ended a car in front of him at an intersection.  The responding police
officer administered a breathalyzer to Applicant, which showed that Applicant was under the
influence of alcohol.  Convicted of DUI, he appealed and ultimately was found guilty of the lesser
charge of reckless driving.  He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, suspended; an $800 fine; and
mandatory attendance at an alcohol awareness class.  The court placed Applicant upon supervised
probation for a year, with a driving restriction and an interlock breathalyzer system in his car.  As
of the close of the record, Applicant was still on probation.
The Judge’s Analysis  
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s DUI incident raised security concerns under Guideline
E.  In finding that Applicant had failed to mitigate those concerns, the Judge cited to the recency of
the incident and his continued probation.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted evidence
that was favorable to Applicant, such as his having overcome a troubled childhood.  He stated that
he found Applicant to be genuinely contrite over his security-significant conduct.   Nevertheless, he
concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to outweigh the recency and seriousness of
Applicant’s DUI.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence that he has held a clearance for five years without incident or
concern, that he has complied with all of the requirements imposed on him by the court, and that he
has abstained from alcohol.  This was evidence the Judge was required to consider, along with all
the other evidence in the record.  However, Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence.  Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed the
evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-12875 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 17, 2013).  Evidence of the
recency of the offense and Applicant’s probationary status support the Judge’s treatment of the
mitigating conditions.
3
Applicant’s brief cites to evidence not contained in the record, that we cannot consider.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  See also ISCR Case No. 11-05684 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2013).  Applicant
states that he has experienced a cut in pay since the loss of his clearance, and he asserts that he has
been punished enough for his offense.  The effect of an adverse decision upon an applicant is neither
relevant nor material in accessing his or her security eligibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-02441
at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2013).  Moreover, a clearance decision is an inquiry into such conduct or
circumstances as raise questions about an applicant’s judgement, reliability, and ability or
willingness to protect classified information. It is not punitive in nature.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
03-24233 at 8 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2005).  
After examining the decision in light of the record as a whole, we conclude that 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: 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: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board