KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline G; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge stated that Applicant was a problem drinker who exercised poor judgment
while under the influence of alcohol.  He stated that Applicant’s separate incidents of DUI
cannot be viewed in isolation because they appear to be part of a larger pattern of drinking and
driving. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01492.a1
DATE: 03/20/2018
DATE: March 20, 2018
In Re:
------------------------------ 
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01492
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
September 20, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Department Counsel
subsequently amended the SOR to raise concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 15, 2017, after the
hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H.
Leonard 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.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline F are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant
works for a Federal contractor and seeks to retain a previously granted security clearance.  In 2007
he was arrested and charged with two counts of Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  Applicant pled
guilty to reckless driving, and the DUI charges were dropped.  He was arrested again in December
2016 and charged with two counts of DUI and with speeding.  The case was ongoing as of the close
of the record, although Applicant testified that he made a foolish mistake by speeding after having
consumed alcohol.  Applicant’s character references describe him as trustworthy, dependable,
honest, and hard-working. 
The Judge stated that Applicant was a problem drinker who exercised poor judgment while
under the influence of alcohol.  He stated that Applicant’s separate incidents of DUI cannot be
viewed in isolation because they appear to be part of a larger pattern of drinking and driving.  He
characterized Applicant as contrite during the hearing and willing to accept responsibility. 
However, the Judge concluded that additional time was needed before it could be determined that
Applicant’s security-significant conduct is behind him.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge erred by denying him a clearance based on two incidents
that were several years apart.  He states that he duly reported his recent misconduct to his employer
and to his facility security officer.  He does not consider himself to be a problem drinker.  However,
Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence, nor are they sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7,
2017).  We conclude that the Judge satisfied the requirements of the Directive insofar as he
2
evaluated the record as a cumulative whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03592 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun.
14, 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
3