KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant cites to favorable evidence, such as her five years of sobriety, her
employment record, and her letters of reference. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has she shown that the Judge weighed
the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07644.a1
DATE: 09/12/2017
DATE: September 12, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07644
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 June
14, 2016, 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 June 16, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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
From 2007 to 2011, Applicant abused oxycodone and percocet, becoming addicted to
opiates.  She also purchased and used marijuana.  At the time of this conduct, Applicant worked for
a Defense contractor that had a policy against the illegal use of controlled substances.  By summer
of 2011, Applicant began injecting heroin to deaden the pain of her liver disease.  She was spending
about $100 a day on heroin.  Later that year, she entered into a detoxification and substance abuse
treatment program.  Applicant completed the rehab program.  Upon discharge a year later, she was
advised to attend a support group such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA) in order to maintain sobriety. 
She attended NA for about six months but then stopped.  Applicant has had no counseling since
2012.  Although she stopped using heroin and opiates, she continued to use marijuana.  She finally
stopped using marijuana after a DWI arrest in October 2012.
In 2011, Applicant completed an application for a public trust position, upon which she did
not report her illegal drug involvement.  In her answer to the SOR, she admitted that she falsified
her response, characterizing her omissions as “wrong and dishonest.”  Decision at 5.  In 2015,
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA).  She reported most of her substance
abuse problems, but stated that she stopped using drugs in October 2011, when she entered rehab. 
She did not disclose her marijuana use in 2012.  She denied that this omission was deliberate.  She
also stated in her SCA that she continued to receive counseling for substance abuse problems and
to go to meetings in order to maintain sobriety.  She presented no evidence of such counseling,
however.    
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant made a strong case for mitigation of the Guideline H
concerns, citing her five years of sobriety and her good employment record.  However, he noted that
she had a long history of substance abuse and that she did not continue with counseling.  Her
falsification of two Federal forms also weighed against a favorable conclusion.
Regarding Guideline E, the Judge found that Applicant had deliberately falsified her 2015
SCA.  He found her explanation for the omission to be lacking credibility.  He also noted another
false claim in her SCA, that she had continued to go to counseling.  In the whole-person analysis,
the Judge noted Applicant’s success in overcoming drug addiction.  He found, however, that her lack
of candor in reporting her substance abuse history raised unmitigated concerns about her
trustworthiness and reliability.
Discussion
Applicant cites to favorable evidence, such as her five years of sobriety, her employment
record, and her letters of reference.  She also notes that she did disclose some of her drug use in her
2015 SCA, which, she contends, shows that she is trustworthy.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has she shown that the
Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  Applicant argues that, if she had possessed
an actual intent to deceive, she would have left out all of her drug use in 2015.  However,
considering the Decision as a whole, we conclude that the Judge’s finding of deliberate omission
of marijuana use until late 2012 is supportable.  Among other things, the multiple nature of
Applicant’s omissions supports the challenged finding.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02567 at 4-5
(App. Bd. Oct. 5, 2015).  The Hearing Office cases that the Judge cites are not sufficient to
undermine the Judge’s analysis and conclusions.  In any event, Hearing Office case are not binding
on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01416 at 3
(App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2017). 
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