DATE: November 1, 2004

---------------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Kathryn Antigone Trowbridge, Esq., Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated December 19, 2003 which stated the reasons why DOHA proposed to deny or revoke access to classified information for Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Administrative Judge Charles D. Ablard issued a favorable security clearance decision dated July 30, 2004.

Department Counsel appealed the Administrative Judge's favorable decision. The Board has jurisdiction under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.

The following issue has been raised on appeal: whether the Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant did not falsify a security clearance application by not listing four alcohol-related incidents on the application. For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.

On appeal, the Board does not review a case de novo. Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the parties to determine whether there is factual or legal error. There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the Administrative Judge committed factual or legal error. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See also ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3 (discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specificity).

When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenged, the Board must consider whether they are: (1) arbitrary or capricious; or (2) contrary to law. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board will review the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 97-0435 (July 14, 1998) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court decision). In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law, the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other applicable federal law. Compliance with state or local law is not required because security clearance adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense pursuant to federal law. See U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0423 (June 8, 2001) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court decisions).

When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Board must determine whether "[t]he Administrative Judge's findings of fact are 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. In making this review, the Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge." Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. The Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence supporting a Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting those findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence as a whole. Although a Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, the party challenging a Judge's credibility determination has a heavy burden on appeal.

When an appeal issue raises a question of law, the Board's scope of review is plenary. See DISCR Case No. 87-2107 (September 29, 1992) at pp. 4-5 (citing federal cases).

If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Board must consider the following questions:

Is the error harmful or harmless? See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0250 (July 11, 2001) at p. 6 (discussing harmless error doctrine);

Has the nonappealing party made a persuasive argument for how the Administrative Judge's decision can be affirmed on alternate grounds? See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0454 (October 17, 2000) at p. 6 (citing federal cases); and

If the Administrative Judge's decision cannot be affirmed, should the case be reversed or remanded? (Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Items E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3).

Department Counsel challenges the Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant did not falsify a security clearance application. In support of that challenge, Department Counsel argues: (a) the Judge's favorable assessment of Applicant's credibility is not sustainable in light of the record evidence that contradicts Applicant's statements; and (b) the record evidence does not support the Judge's acceptance of Applicant's explanation for the omission.

As noted earlier in this decision, an Administrative Judge's credibility determination is entitled to deference on appeal, and the appealing party has a heavy burden of persuasion when challenging a Judge's credibility determination. Department Counsel strongly disagrees with the Judge's credibility determination concerning Applicant, but fails to make a persuasive argument that the Judge's credibility determination is not sustainable. Department Counsel's appeal brief does not set forth reasons that would justify the Board overturning the Judge's credibility determination concerning Applicant.

Department Counsel strongly disagrees with the Administrative Judge's findings of fact concerning Applicant's explanation for the omission of the alcohol-related incidents from the security clearance application. However, that disagreement, standing alone, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge's findings of fact are erroneous. Given the record evidence in this case, the Board does not have to agree with the Judge's challenged findings to conclude they are sustainable under Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. ⁽²⁾

The Board affirms the Administrative Judge's security clearance decision because Department Counsel has not demonstrated error below.

Signed: Emilio Jaksetic

Emilio Jaksetic

Administrative Judge

Chairman, Appeal Board

Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan

Michael Y. Ra'anan

Administrative Judge

Member, Appeal Board

Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett

Jeffrey D. Billett

Administrative Judge

Member, Appeal Board

1. The Administrative Judge entered formal findings in favor of Applicant with respect to Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). Those favorable formal findings are not at issue on appeal.

2. The Board shall determine whether or not "[t]he Administrative Judge's findings of fact are 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. In making this review, the Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge."