KEYWORD: Guideline K; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant admitted the security violations alleged in the SOR, and was responsible for
presenting witnesses and other evidence in rebuttal, explanation, extenuation, or mitigation.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03785.a1
DATE: 06/08/2017
DATE: June 8, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03785
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
January 19, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) and
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 March 23 2017,
after considering the record, 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.
Applicant  raised the following issue on appeal:  whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis 
Applicant admitted that he committed six security violations between 1991 and 2010. 
Applicant wrote that he takes his responsibilities very seriously, the alleged incidents were not the
result of disregard of procedures, he has learned from his mistakes, and he is much more careful
today.  “While it has been several years since Applicant was last cited or involved with security
violations, no independent evidence, such as character letters, employment evaluations, or
counselling or remedial security training reports, has been introduced to establish that Applicant has
significantly changed his conduct to insure that these violations will not occur in the future. . . .” 
Decision at 5.  The Judge concluded no mitigating conditions applied in this case. 
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that no independent evidence was introduced
to establish that he significantly changed his conduct to ensure security violations will not occur in
the future.  In this regard, he points out that, in his response to Department Counsel’s File of
Relevant Material, he requested that the Government provide the Judge with the results of his
coworker’s interviews that were obtained  during his security investigation because he believed
those interviews would have positive statements concerning his emphasis on security, overall
stability, and suitability for a position of trust.  We do not find this argument persuasive.  Because
Applicant admitted the security violations alleged in the SOR, he was responsible for presenting
witnesses and other evidence in rebuttal, explanation, extenuation,  or mitigation.  He also had the
ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable clearance decision.  Directive ¶ E31.15. 
Department Counsel had no obligation to present evidence in mitigation.  The record presented to
the Judge did not contain the results of the coworker’s interviews.  From our review of the record,
we find no error in the Judge’s challenged conclusion.   
In the appeal brief, Applicant submitted character letters, employment evaluations, training
records, and other documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration.  Such 
documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E31.29.   
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.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, 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