KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F; Guideline H
DIGEST: Applicant denied that he had deliberately misled the investigator.  However, after
considering the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification
is supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01950.a1
DATE: 08/07/2018
DATE: August 7, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01950
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 July
17, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E
(Personal Conduct), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On April 19, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings contained
errors and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.    The
Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines F and H are not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with
the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings and Analysis
Applicant is an employee of the Defense contractor.  He served in the military from 2000
until 2010.  In 2001, while on active duty, he smoked marijuana on several occasions and used
cocaine once.  In 2009, he used an alternative to marijuana known as spice.  He did so several times. 
Applicant also took Percocet twice without a prescription.  Another service member provided the
Percocet to him, and on the second occasion he snorted it.  As a consequence of this misconduct,
Applicant received nonjudicial punishment and was discharged prior to the completion of his term
of service with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions.
When he was interviewed during his background investigation, Applicant told the
investigator that his wife had given him one Percocet pill that he had taken to relieve back pain.  He
stated that he had never smoked spice and had never snorted Percocet.  He claimed that the only time
he had used Percocet it was given to him by his wife.  At the hearing, he acknowledged that he had
not told the investigator the truth.  
The Judge stated that Applicant’s deliberate false statements to the investigator cast doubt
upon his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  None of the potentially applicable
mitigating conditions apply. 
 
Discussion
Applicant denied that he had deliberately misled the investigator.  However, after
considering the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification
is supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See,
e.g.,  ISCR Case No. 16-04094 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2018).  Applicant cites to evidence that he
contends the Judge did not consider or that he mis-weighed.  However, Applicant has not rebutted
2
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 16-01077 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 25, 2018).  Applicant cites to the adverse impact that an
unfavorable decision will have upon him.  However, the Directive does not permit us to consider
this matter.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01492 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2018).     
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: Charles C. Hale                 
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3