KEYWORD: Guideline J
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge’s decision “was not completed efficiently” and
argues the Judge should have “followed through” to determine he was released from probation.
Having admitted the sole SOR allegation, the burden was on Applicant to present such evidence
in mitigation. The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as an investigator for either party.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06434.a1
DATE: 08/02/2017
DATE: August 2, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-06434
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
March 28, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the
written record.  On May 30, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement and court
documents.  The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Applicant contends that the Judge’s decision “was not completed efficiently” and argues the
Judge should have “followed through” to determine he was released from probation.  Appeal Brief
at 1.  Having admitted the sole SOR allegation, the burden was on Applicant to present such
evidence in mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as an
investigator for either party.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06659 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct 22. 2012).  
Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s handling of the case or in her
decision.  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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶
2(b):  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy        
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board