Kenneth Roberts, Esq. for a free Security Clearance Law consultation
WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE BURDEN?
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from
being eligible for access to classified information. The government has the burden of
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Department of the Navy v. Egan,
484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance. See v.
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the
criteria listed therein and an applicants security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611
at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the
facts. Directive Ά E3.1.15. An applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). [S]ecurity
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials. Egan, 484
U.S. at 531; see AG Ά 2(b).
If you were denied a security clearance, contact Kenneth M. Roberts, Esq., Lt. Col.,
USAF (Ret.) at (702) 388-1216 for a free