KEYWORD: Guideline H; GuidelineJ; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant challenges the Judge’s determination that his testimony about unknowing
ingestion lacked credibility.  We are required to give deference to a Judge’s credibility
determination. The Judge’s conclusion was founded upon a lack of corroboration and upon the
apparent recency of Applicant’s claim.  We note that Applicant does not deny the accuracy of the
drug test at issue here, implicitly conceding the presence of marijuana in his system.  We find no
reason to reject the Judge’s credibility determination. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-02854.a1
DATE: 11/22/2016
DATE: November 22, 2016
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02854
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
December 11, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2,
1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 26, 2016, after the
hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I.
Goldstein 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 served in the military from 2004 through 2009 and in the reserves from 2009 until
2014.  He achieved the grade of E-5.  Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from 1999
through mid-2013, which included use while holding a clearance.  While in the military, Applicant
was charged twice under Article 15, UCMJ, for underage consumption of alcohol.  Later, he was
fired from a civilian job due to wrongful behavior toward a client.  This conduct involved Applicant
pushing another person.
In 2013, while in the Reserves, Applicant was selected for a random urinalysis, which came
back positive for marijuana.  As a consequence, Applicant was administratively discharged from the
Reserves, receiving a General Discharge.  At the hearing, Applicant claimed, for the first time, that
this positive urinalysis “must have” resulted from unknowing ingestion.  Decision at 3.  Applicant
no longer associates with the person who hosted the party.  While in the military, he received
numerous medals and awards.
The Judge’s Analysis
In holding against Applicant under all three Guidelines, the Judge stated that she found his
claim of unknowing ingestion to be lacking credibility.  She noted that he had provided no
corroboration for this claim.  She also stated that Applicant’s marijuana use while in the military was
in contravention of official policy forbidding such conduct and that Applicant’s poor judgment was
further demonstrated by drug use while holding a clearance.  The Judge stated that Applicant had
failed to acknowledge his misconduct and that he produced insufficient evidence that such behavior
is unlikely to recur.   Though citing to Applicant’s military service, she reiterated her conclusion that
his claim of unknowing ingestion of marijuana was not believable.  
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s determination that his testimony about unknowing
ingestion was lacking in credibility.  We are required to give deference to a Judge’s credibility
determination.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  In this case, the Judge’s conclusion was founded upon a lack
2
of corroboration and upon the apparent recency of Applicant’s claim.  We also note that Applicant’s
argument does not deny the accuracy of the drug test at issue here, implicitly conceding the presence
of marijuana in his system.  All in all, we find no reason to reject the Judge’s credibility
determination.
Applicant cites to evidence that he has stopped associating with the person who threw the
party where his marijuana ingestion apparently occurred.  He also notes that he has held a clearance
for many years without incident or concern and that he has had other urinalyses that were negative. 
The Judge made findings about Applicant’s evidence and discussed it in her analysis.  Applicant has
not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).
Applicant notes that he was not represented at the hearing by a lawyer.  He requests an
opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence that he believes would be favorable to him. 
However, prior to the hearing, Applicant received detailed guidance from the Chief Administrative
Judge that explained his rights at the hearing, including his right to counsel.  Applicant also received
a copy of the Directive along with the SOR.  The Directive describes an applicant’s hearing rights
as well.  Applicant was provided with sufficient notice of his right to counsel.  Moreover, we have
no authority to remand a case for the purpose of taking in new evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-00976 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 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: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4