KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05198.a1
DATE: 01/08/2016
DATE: January 8, 2016
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05198
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 23, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
2
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 October 27, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is a employee of a Defense contractor.  He served with the U.S. military from 2004
until 2013, at which point he was discharged with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions
due to a pattern of misconduct.  He is seeking to retain a security clearance that he has held since
he was in the military.
While in the miliary, Applicant had a number of disciplinary incidents.  In 2009, he violated
an order to refrain from contact with a female service member, for which he received nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ.  Later that year he received a letter of reprimand (LOR)
for having a “physical confrontation” with his spouse.  Decision at 2.  He received another LOR in
2011 for reckless driving of a motorcycle and for exceeding the speed limit.  Early in 2012, he
received a letter of counseling for failure to report to his place of duty.  In December 2012,
Applicant disobeyed an order to complete a motorcycle safety course, which resulted in NJP.  He
received NJP on two occasions in 2013, one for disobedience and another for absenting himself from
his place of duty.  
In addition to these infractions, civilian authorities cited Applicant for several traffic offenses
in 2012: expired license plate, speeding, registration violation, no proof of insurance, etc.  Applicant
paid fines and fees arising from these incidents.  Applicant has had no additional criminal arrests
or citations since 2013.  He believes that his actions while in the military did not constitute a pattern
of misconduct but, rather, a series of isolated incidents.  While on active duty Applicant deployed
twice in support of U.S. military objectives.  He has also served in combat zones while working for
his current employer.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant has exhibited poor judgment and disregard for the law.  He
was not able to conclude that such incidents would not recur.  He stated that Applicant’s conduct
casts doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.
Discussion
3
Applicant argues that the Judge did not take into account the amount of time that had elapsed
since his most recent infraction.  He also contends that the Judge did not consider, or mis-weighed,
his letters of recommendation and other evidence of good character, as well as his having paid the
fines assessed against him, etc.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec.
4, 2015).  Neither has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Applicant draws our
attention to another Hearing Office case that, he believes, supports his effort to retain his clearance.
Each case must be decided upon its own merits.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  Hearing Office
decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015).   
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
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board