KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline K; Guideline M
DIGEST: We give deference to a Judge’s credibility determination.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  The
evidence, which includes his prior employer’s written summary of the things that led to his
firing, support the challenged finding.  Indeed, the number of infractions suggest that they were
not merely inadvertent or negligent.  We have noted before that multiple false statements support
a finding of intentional misbehavior. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-02612.a1
DATE: 04/25/2019
DATE: April 25, 2019
In Re:
----------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02612
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
December 1, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline M (Use of
Information Technology), and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On February 11, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 and Analysis
Applicant was terminated from a previous employment.  The reasons for this termination
were that he installed unauthorized software on his work computer; created five “administrative
accounts,” some in the names of co-workers, on a classified system without obtaining approval; and
falsified his time card over a seven-day period, during which he spent the majority of his time on
non-work related activities.  Applicant claimed that he did not know that the software he installed
was not authorized and that he had authority to create the administrative accounts.  He did not
corroborate these assertions.  Applicant submitted five letters of support, but none of them shed light
upon his misconduct.  
The Judge stated that Applicant’s security-significant conduct was intentional, unauthorized,
and occurred within two and a half years prior to the hearing.  He noted Applicant’s falsified time
cards and other misconduct, stating that he showed little or no remorse.  Though noting evidence
that Applicant is well-respected in his current job, he found that the record left him with questions
and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider, or that he mis-weighed, favorable record
evidence, such as his claim that he had approval for some of his conduct and that his conduct
occurred over two years prior to the hearing.  He argues that his infractions were relatively minor
and that he had not been properly trained.  Applicant takes exception to the Judge’s comments that
he had acted intentionally and that he lacked remorse, thereby challenging the Judge’s adverse
credibility determination.  On this last point, we give deference to a Judge’s credibility
determination.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  The evidence, which includes his prior employer’s written
summary of the things that led to his firing, support the challenged finding.  Indeed, the number of
infractions suggest that they were not merely inadvertent or negligent.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-
08163 at 5 (App.  Bd. Oct. 25, 2017) (Multiple false statements support a finding of intentional
misbehavior).  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record, 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. 17-04198 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 15,
2
2019).  We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited.  However,
Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  Each
case must be adjudicated on its own merits.  The cited case does not provide a reason to conclude
that the Judge erred in his analysis or conclusions.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03363 at 3 (App.
Bd. Nov. 29, 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 Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. 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