KEYWORD:  Guideline E
DIGEST:  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge examined the relevant evidence and
articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO:  14-06870.a1
DATE:  02/15/2017
DATE: February 15, 2017
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06870
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 7, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for 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 decision on the
written record.  On November 22, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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
In early 2012, Applicant was fired from a job with a Defense contractor because he had
presented fraudulent logs to the Government and because he did not do a majority of the work
conveyed in the logs, which the employer characterized as “gross misconduct.”  Decision at 2.  In
his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the misconduct but claimed that it was common among
his co-workers to falsify the logs and then receive only a verbal warning.  His state’s Department
of Labor upheld Applicant’s firing.  When interviewed by a clearance investigator, Applicant lied
about his job termination, attributing it to a conflict between himself and a company official.  He
later confirmed under oath the accuracy of his interview summary that the investigator had prepared.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions applied to Applicant’s case.  He
characterized Applicant’s on-the-job misconduct as extremely serious, stating that it could have
affected national security.  He also stated that Applicant had lied about his misconduct at least twice. 
He concluded that there is insufficient evidence that Applicant currently shows good judgment or
is trustworthy.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not extend appropriate weight to favorable evidence,
for example his claim in the SOR Answer that others had committed similar infractions.1  He also
argues that the Judge should have extended more weight to Applicant’s three years without
subsequent offense.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a
manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06686 at 2
(App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016).  The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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.”
1Applicant did not submit a documentary response to the File of Relevant Material.  Decision at 1.
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
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  James F. Duffy        
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board