KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board has no authority to grant a lower level clearance as an intermediate
solution, if Applicant is ineligible for the sought after level of clearance.  Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASENO: 12-00740.a1
DATE: 08/18/2014
DATE: August 18, 2014
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-00740
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
August 26, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
1Applicant’s security clearance application (SCA), Item 4, shows that he frequently worked as a security guard
or in some other related job.   
2
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 decision on the
written record.  On June 5, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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 considered all of the
evidence in the record.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant entered the U.S. military in 2005.  He tested positive on a pre-induction urinalysis.
He was permitted to enlist because other recruits tested positive as well.  He had denied any prior
use of controlled substances on his enlistment papers.  He later received non-judicial punishment
under Article 15, UCMJ, for communicating a threat to kill a Drill Sergeant.  Applicant denied the
offense.  During his clearance interview he was vague about the circumstances underlying the
Article 15, attributing his remarks to sarcasm.
Applicant was disciplined and/or terminated from employment from several civilian
employers.  Two of his job terminations, from the same employer, resulted from his having followed
a shoplifter into the parking lot without calling for support, as company policy required him to do.1
Another employer administered verbal and written warnings to Applicant for speed alerts,
attendance issues, “displaying an attitude,” not following instructions, and not clocking out on time.
Decision at 2.  During his interview, he initially denied having issues with this employer.  When
confronted with the adverse information, he claimed that he had been told by someone at the
company that the incidents would not be placed in his file.
He had disciplinary problems with another employer that provided security services.  While
performing his rounds, he failed to report burglars in a store, believing them simply to be
rearranging inventory.  He was also counseled for poor attendance.  
During his interview he failed to disclose all of his disciplinary problems.  He also stated to
the investigator and to the clearance adjudicator that he was making statements that he thought they
wanted to hear.  He also told the investigator that he would tell his employers whatever he thought
they might want to hear, whether he meant the statements or not.  In completing his SCA, he failed
to disclose disciplinary action by two of his employers.  
The Judge’s Analysis
3
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s conduct was neither minor nor infrequent.  Moreover,
he stated that Applicant had made no efforts to correct his omissions and false statements.  The
Judge characterized Applicant’s behavior as a pattern, finding that he had taken no steps to reduce
his vulnerability to coercion.  The Judge concluded that Applicant’s conduct raised serious,
unresolved questions as to his fitness for a clearance.
Discussion
Applicant cites to his having held a clearance for several years in the Reserves without a
security incident.  While this is evidence that the Judge was required to consider, along with all of
the other evidence in the record, Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06649 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb.
21, 2014).  Applicant states his belief that the requirements for a secret clearance are different from
those of a top secret and requests us to approve a secret clearance for him if he fails “to reach the
standard of a TS[.]” Appeal Brief at 1.  We have no authority to grant this relief.  “DOHA decisions
must either  grant or deny a clearance . . . we have no authority to compromise and grant a lower
level clearance as an intermediate solution.”  ISCR Case No. 99-0260 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2000).
    
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 Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board