KEYWORD: Guideline J; Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record.  The Appeal Board is not permitted to consider the adverse impact of an
unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-01443.a1
DATE: 04/28/2015
DATE: April 28, 2015
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-01443
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 July
3, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug
Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan.
2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On February 17, 2015, after the
hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous arrests and/or convictions, 29 in all, for such offenses
as criminal damage to property, possession of a narcotic, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting
arrest, obstructing justice, violation of parole (a felony), and others.  Applicant served time in jail
on four different occasions.  In addition, Applicant has a history of involvement with illegal drugs.
She has been addicted in crack cocaine, has purchased drugs, and, since December 2009, has lived
in “a sober living house.”  Decision at 2.  She has participated in rehabilitation programs, including
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous.  She began using crack cocaine in 1991,
due to peer pressure and to relieve pain caused by her having been molested by a family member.
She was addicted to crack for 18 years.  She stated that she has been sober since December 2009.
In completing her security clearance application (SCA), Applicant provided false answers
to several questions.  She provided a home address that was not true, insofar she was homeless at
the time in question.  She alleged that she had been employed by a company from 2004 until the
present, when in actuality she had been fully employed there since 2009.  She acknowledged that
she had provided false information, but stated that she did so in order to keep her job.  Applicant also
falsified material information about her police record, denying any drug or alcohol related offenses,
and also denied illegal use of drugs or having participated in drug rehabilitation programs.
Applicant also made false statements to a clearance investigator regarding her home address and
arrests and convictions.  Applicant admitted the allegations of deliberate falsification.  
Applicant called two character witnesses, one of whom was her sponsor in AA.  Her sponsor
attested to her continued sobriety.  She enjoys an excellent reputation for honesty, dependability,
and hard work.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted Applicant’s progress in rehabilitating herself from her addiction, but he
stated that the duration of her criminal conduct and her deliberate falsifications precluded a
favorable finding under Guideline J.  Likewise, he concluded that her failure to disclose her drug
use impaired her credibility concerning mitigation of the Guideline H allegations.  The Judge found
that none of the Guideline E mitigating conditions applied to Applicant’s numerous falsifications.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence of her sobriety for the five years preceding the hearing, arguing
that she has shown rehabilitation.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record.  Neither has she shown that the Judge failed properly
to weigh the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00508 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015).  Applicant
3
states that she needs a clearance in order to keep her job.  However, the Directive does not permit
us to consider the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision.  Id.  
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