KEYWORD: CAC
DIGEST: Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that she deliberately omitted material
information from her Form 306.  However, the Judge’s finding is a reasonable inference from the
evidence.  The Judge’s material findings are supported by substantial evidence. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01990.a2
DATE: 01/11/2019
DATE: January 11, 2019
In Re:
----------------------
 
Applicant for CAC Eligibility
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAC Case No. 17-01990
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 eligibility for Common
Access Card (CAC) credentialing.  On November 9, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR)
advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–Criminal, Dishonest Conduct, or Financial
Irresponsibility concerns and Material, Intentional False Statement, Deception, or Fraud concerns,
raised under the adjudicative standards in the appendices of DoD Instruction 5200.46 (Sep. 9, 2014)
(Instruction).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 15, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin denied Applicant’s
request for CAC eligibility.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Instruction, Enclosure 4 ¶ 6.
On September 19, 2018, we remanded the case to the Judge to correct an identified error. 
On October 11, 2018, the Judge issued a Remand Decision in which he again denied Applicant’s
request for a CAC.  Applicant appealed pursuant to DoD Directive 5220.6.  
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in finding that she
had deliberately omitted information from a Declaration for Federal Employment and 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 is a 40-year-old severely disabled employee of a Federal contractor.  She has been
working for her current employer at a military installation since late 2016.  The SOR alleges several
minor offenses or infractions, including that Applicant was charged with reckless driving in 2013;
arrested for theft by deception - passing two bad checks in 2012; arrested for giving a false name
to a police officer and possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia in 2011; and arrested for
cruelty to animals in 2010.  She admitted the reckless driving allegation, was found guilty of the bad
check offenses, and was sentenced to serve 20 days in jail for the false name and drug offenses.  The
Judge found portions of her testimony to be not credible.  She has not been arrested since 2013.  Her
character references attest to her hard work and kindness.  
In completing a Declaration for Federal Employment (Form 306) in 2016, Applicant
answered “Yes” to the question that asked if she had been convicted, imprisoned, on probation, or
on parole in the last seven years.  She only disclosed the 2012 check offenses and 2011 arrest for
providing false information to a policeman.  She denied that she had deliberately omitted the other
offenses from her form.  She attributed her omissions to forgetfulness.  The Judge found that
Applicant had failed to list the only offense for which Applicant went to jail.   
With the exception of two minor charges,1 the Judge found that Applicant had not mitigated
the criminal and dishonest conduct concerns.  She omitted information about the most serious
offenses from her Form 306.  The Judge did not find her explanation for the omissions to be
forthright or candid.  She did not mitigate the material, intentional, false statement, deception, or
fraud concerns.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant had overcome
1 The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two harassing communication charges from 2008.  
2
“tremendous physical challenges and disadvantages.”  Decision at 8.  However, he concluded that
her pattern of law violations undermined her trustworthiness; that she did not provide a meaningful
explanation for her omissions; and that she did not provide restitution for her bad check offenses.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief cites to new evidence, which we cannot consider.  See, e.g., CAC Case
No.15-06228 at 1 (App. Bd. Dec. 22, 2016).  Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that she
deliberately omitted material information from her Form 306.  However, the Judge’s finding is a
reasonable inference from the evidence.  The Judge’s material findings are supported by substantial
evidence.  See, e.g., CAC Case No. 16-03527 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 11, 2018).  Applicant requests that
we consult a web site that she claims would provide medical substantiation for her memory loss.2 
We have no authority to investigate a case, insofar as we have no fact-finding power.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).
Applicant notes that the Judge cited to a provision of the Instruction that lists an individual’s
age and maturity as relevant factors in CAC adjudications.  See Instruction, Encl. 4 ¶ 1(b)(4).  She
argues that she developed late and was not mature at the time of her misconduct.  Applicant has not
demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.   See, e.g., CAC Case No. 16-01524 at 5 (App. Bd. Apr. 19, 2018).
The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s conclusion that granting Applicant CAC eligibility poses an unacceptable risk
is sustainable on this record.
2Applicant argues she is subject to difficulties with concentration, memory, and decision-making.  Even if the
record demonstrated these difficulties, it is not clear that the result would be mitigating.  Holders of CAC eligibility may
not create an unacceptable risk to people or property.  Applicant’s purported difficulties could diminish that
responsibility.
3
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
4