KEYWORD: Guidelline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his evidence about the effect of
PTSD on his omissions.  He claims that he had established a nexus between that diagnosis and
his security-significant conduct.  Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption
that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor is it enough to show that the
Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Failure to provide truthful answers during the security
clearance process “will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action[.]” Directive,
Enclosure 2 ¶ 15(b).  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-00977.a1
DATE: 11/23/2016
DATE: November 23, 2016
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00977
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
August 22, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under 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 September 13, 2016, 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.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of
the evidence in the record and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline H are not at issue in this appeal. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant enlisted in the military, during which time he completed a tour of duty in a combat
zone.  In 2004, while in the military, Applicant submitted to a random drug test, which yielded a
positive result for cocaine.  Applicant held a clearance at the time of his cocaine use.  He was
discharged from the military with a General discharge.  He used cocaine about three times after his
discharge, the last time being in 2008.  Applicant experimented with marijuana while in high school
and used it once or twice after leaving the military.  His last use of marijuana was in 2008, when he
failed a pre-employment drug screening.  Applicant attributes his use of cocaine to the stress of
combat.  While deployed, he was frequently subjected to enemy fire.  In addition, he had difficulty
adjusting to civilian life, experiencing nightmares and anxiety.  He underwent counseling by his
pastor, who was also a veteran.
In 2008, Applicant completed an application for a public trust position.  He answered “no”
to a question regarding any drug use during the previous year.  In 2011, he completed an application
for a security clearance (SCA).  He disclosed one instance of marijuana use but did not disclose the
other such episodes or his use of cocaine.  During his 2012 clearance interview, Applicant told the
investigator that he had been discharged from the military because MPs had detected alcohol on his
breath as he was driving on post.  
Applicant met with a psychologist in November 2015.  This person testified at the hearing,
providing his opinion that Applicant’s false statements were the result of post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).  Specifically, he stated that Applicant had been in denial about his drug use, which
was a “self-protect[ion] mechanism.”  Decision at 3.  He testified that Applicant revised history in
order to eliminate trauma.1  At the hearing, Applicant stated that he had answered the clearance
investigator as he did because of stress caused by issues related to his breakup with his fiancee.  He
1“[I]t’s a self-protect mechanism that some people are able to use and the mind simply revises history to
eliminate traumas.  So, you just don’t think about stuff that’s traumatic.  You just don’t.  You overlook it.  It’s not there
for you.”  Tr. at 18.  
2
stated that he had only disclosed one instance of marijuana use on his SCA because it was the one
that resulted from a failed drug test.  He also stated that, when he had completed his application for
a position of trust, he did not know that the use of illegal drugs was inconsistent with policy.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cleared Applicant of allegations relating to his illegal drug use.  However, he
entered adverse findings regarding his various false answers.  He stated that Applicant had failed
to demonstrate a nexus between his PTSD and his omissions and that Applicant’s omissions were
selective, insofar as he disclosed the one instance of marijuana use that would most likely be
discovered.  He also found that Applicant’s claim not to know that illegal drug use was inconsistent
with holding a position of trust was not credible.    
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his evidence about the effect of PTSD
on his omissions.  He claims that he had indeed established a nexus between that diagnosis and his
security-significant conduct.  Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor is it enough to show that the Judge mis-
weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).
Applicant cites to a Hearing Office decision.  We give this decision due consideration, but Hearing
Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015). 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  Failure to provide truthful answers during the security clearance process “will normally
result in an unfavorable clearance action[.]” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15(b).  See, also ISCR Case
No. 14-03069 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 20, 2015).  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
3
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4