(a) The grant or denial of security clearance to a particular employee is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call that is committed by law to the appropriate Executive Branch agency having the necessary expertise in protecting classified information. It is not reasonably possible for an outside, nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment , and such rev iew cannot b e presumed me rely because t he statute does not expressly preclude it. Pp. 526-530. (b) The statute's express language and structure confirm that it does not confer broad authority on the Board to review security-clearance determinations. A clearance denial is not one of the enumerated "adverse actions" that are subject to Board review, and nothing in the Act directs or empowers the Board to go beyond determining whether "cause" for a denial existed, whether in fact clearance was denied, and whether transfer to a nonsensitive position was feasible. The application of § 7701's preponder ance of the evi dence stand ard to securi ty-clearance determinations would inevitably alter the "clearly consistent with the interests of the national security" standard normally applied in making such determinations and would involve the Board in second-guessing an agency's national security determinations, a result that it is extremely unlikely Congress intended. Respondent's argument that the availability of the alternative § 7532 summary removal procedure compels a conclusion of reviewability, since an anomalous situation would otherwise exist whereby the more "drastic" § 7532 remedy would actually entitle a removed employee to greater procedural protections—particularly to a preremoval trial-type h earing—tha n would § 7 513, is unp ersuasive. Section 7532 provides a procedure that is harsh and drastic both for the employee and for the agency head, who must act personally in suspending and removing the employee, and removal thereunder, even as envisioned by respon dent, would not have amo unted to "m ore" procedu ral protecti on than respondent received under § 7513. The procedures under the two sections are not anomalous, but merely different. Pp. 530—534. 802 F.2d 1563, reversed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. W HITE, J., filed a dissentin g opinio n, in which BR ENNAN an d MARSHALL, JJ., joined,

post,