KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is no basis to conclude that the Judge did not consider all the record evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-11559.a1
DATE: 07/22/2014
DATE: July 22, 2014
In Re:
---------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-11559
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
February 19, 2014, DoD 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).
1The probation violation concerned Applicant’s having missed an appointment with his probation officer.  He
claimed that he was not able to make the appointment due to his job and that he so notified the officer.  He also stated
that the officer was subsequently convicted of drug offenses and of corruption.  The Judge stated that there was no
evidence that these infractions affected the decision to revoke probation.  Decision at 4. 
2
Applicant requested a hearing.  On May 29, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 in that he failed to consider significant contrary record
evidence.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor, having worked in that capacity since June
2012.  He previously worked for Defense contractors in support of U.S. military operations overseas.
He has received a favorable trustworthiness designation in the recent past, but this is his first
application for a security clearance.
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his duty performance, as well as
for his trustworthiness and dependability.  He has been cited for the high quality of his work, and
fellow workers describe him as a team player and as one who would not compromise classified
information.
Applicant dropped out of high school after the tenth grade but later received a general
educational development (GED) certificate.  He worked in various positions, experiencing periods
of unemployment, before working for Defense contractors.  
Applicant’s record contains numerous instances of criminal conduct, that resulted in charges
and/or convictions.  He was convicted of a felony, unlawful wounding, for which he was sentenced
to three years imprisonment, with two years and nine months suspended.  Applicant asserts that an
acquaintance against whom he had previously testified in a criminal proceeding threatened to kill
him in retaliation.  Applicant contends that he attempted to take the gun away from the person, and
it discharged, wounding his assailant.
His other offenses include stalking, driving while intoxicated, assault, destruction of
property, a probation violation1, contempt of court, and public intoxication.  There were two
allegations each of probation violations and contempt of court, but the Judge resolved one of each
of these charges in his favor, as being duplicative with the other.  He also resolved one of the assault
charges in Applicant’s favor based upon evidence that Applicant was not the aggressor.  However,
for the balance of the charges, the Judge found Applicant to have committed the underlying conduct.
2See Government Exhibit 3, Interview Summary, at p. 6-7:  “‘He was queried why he did not list his DUI on
the case papers.  He admitted that he intentionally omitted the offense.  He thought that the felony was more serious
[than] the DUI so he listed that down.  He did not want anything else hurting his chances [of] being able to keep his
overseas job and he needs a security clearance to do his current job.  He was afraid that if he listed down additional
charges this would hurt his chances [of] getting his security clearance.”  At the hearing, Applicant testified that he left
offenses off his 2010 trustworthiness application.  “I might had did lie [sic] to the Government here.  And I maybe didn’t
want to disqualify myself from the job at the time.”  Tr. At 82.  At the hearing, Applicant testified that an unnamed
person from the military told him that his record was wiped clean by the grant of a trustworthiness designation.  He
interpreted this to mean that he did not have to list his offenses when completing his SCA.  “[Q]: But you understand
that [the SCA] is completely different from that, right? [A]: Yes, sir.  And I lied on – I mean, I see what you are saying.”
Tr. a 91-93.  
3
The Judge also found that, in an application for a trustworthiness designation in 2010 and
again in his security clearance application (SCA) regarding his current adjudication, Applicant failed
to disclose most of his criminal incidents. He also failed to disclose his interactions with two foreign
women.  The Judge noted Applicant’s contention that he had left off much of this conduct upon the
advice of an unnamed military official.  However, the Judge also noted Applicant’s acknowledgment
in his clearance interview that he left out information that he feared might imperil his chance for a
favorable result.2  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under both Guidelines
alleged in the SOR.  Although he resolved three of the criminal charges in Applicant’s favor, as well
as the allegations of falsification concerning the two foreigners, he resolved the majority of the
allegations against Applicant.  In doing so, he cited to the deliberate nature of the falsifications and
the number of criminal charges.  He acknowledged that Applicant’s last criminal incident, the DUI,
occurred six years prior to the close of the record.  However, he concluded that Applicant’s
numerous falsifications precluded a finding that Applicant had demonstrated rehabilitation.  He also
noted evidence that Applicant did not attempt to correct his falsifications until he was confronted
with them.  
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted evidence that Applicant had matured since his
last incident of criminal conduct.  He also noted evidence that Applicant had acquired job skills and
had received satisfaction from exercising those skills in support of his country.  However, the Judge
stated that his deceptive answers during the clearance process showed a lack of judgment.  He
described Applicant’s case as “sad” in that, despite the progress Appliant had made, it was the
Judge’s obligation to resolve close cases in favor of national security.  Decision at 17.
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant cites to favorable evidence, including evidence that he believes
mitigates the seriousness of his felony conviction, evidence that his parole officer was charged with
corruption, and evidence of his duty performance and the satisfaction he has received from doing
a job well.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  In this case,
4
the Judge made extensive findings about Applicant’s circumstances, including the matters raised in
his appeal brief.  He also discussed this evidence in the Analysis.  Examining the Decision in light
of the entirety of the record evidence, we find no reason to conclude that the Judge failed to consider
all of the evidence or that he weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13948 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 26, 2014).  The Judge found
Applicant’s efforts to explain his omissions to be lacking in credibility.  We give deference to a
Judge’s credibility determination.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  Given the extent of Applicant’s criminal conduct and his numerous, recent falsifications
during the processing of his applications for a trustworthiness designation and for a clearance, 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 Ra’anan                  
Michael 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