KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: The Judge’s whole person analysis relied on numerous unchallenged findings of fact. 
Given the totality of facts and circumstances the Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is
not arbitrary capricious or contrary to law.  The Judge analysis of mitigating conditions under
Guideline B contains problematic statements of law including Board precedent.
CASENO: 03-21190.a1
DATE: 03/12/2007
DATE: March 12, 2007
In Re:
------
SSN: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 03-21190
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Sheldon I. Cohen, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 30, 2004, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
The Government’s assignment of errors and brief refer only to Guideline B.  The Judge’s favorable decision1
as to Guideline C security concerns, therefore, is not at issue.  
The Judge’s analysis of possible mitigating conditions under Guideline B contains problematic statements of2
law, including Board precedent, such as: “[T]he Appeal Board prohibits any consideration of evidence that is not
dispositive of the issue.”  The Judge cited no authority for this statement.  We note that this Board places no such
limitation on the admission or consideration of evidence, the Directive requiring that “[e]ach clearance decision must
be a . . . common sense determination based on consideration of all relevant and material information.”  ¶ 6.3.  Compare
ISCR Case No. 04-11571 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2007).
2
for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C
(Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 27, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative
Judge Christopher Graham granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel
submitted a timely appeal, and Applicant cross-appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.  
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge resolved
concerns under Guideline B about Applicant’s ties of affection to his relatives in Israel by a “whole
person” analysis that was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.   Department Counsel argued that1
the Judge’s whole person analysis was conclusory in nature and not based upon substantial record
evidence.  
In his whole person analysis, the Judge relied on numerous unchallenged findings of fact
which cumulatively support his ultimate conclusion that Applicant has sufficiently strong ties to the
U.S. to overcome the government’s security concerns.  These facts include the following: Applicant
is a U.S. citizen with “almost thirty-five years of successful employment in this country;” Applicant
was educated in the U.S.;  his children are U.S. citizens; and  Applicant has no financial ties to Israel.
The Judge also found that Israel’s status as a U.S. ally  renders it less likely that Israel would exploit
Applicant’s relatives.  In addition, the Judge stated that Applicant’s demeanor buttressed the
credibility of his testimony that he has attachments in the U.S. and will protect U.S. secrets.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1 (“[T]he Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of
the Administrative Judge.”); ISCR Case No. 02-03186 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2006).  Given the record
before him, the Judge has articulated a rational explanation for his favorable decision.  An issue on
appeal concerns Applicant’s brother, a retired Israeli military officer.  In a similar situation, the Board
noted there was no basis to conclude that an applicant’s brother (who was a retired officer in the Air
Force of Taiwan) is currently an agent of the government.  See ISCR 03-17071 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.
22, 2006).  An appealing party’s disagreement with a Judge’s decision is not a sufficient basis to
establish that he erred.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-05912 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2001).  The Board2
concludes that the Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law, given the totality of facts and circumstances in this case.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3.
Because of this holding, issues raised by Applicant on cross-appeal are moot.
3
Order
The decision of the Administrative Judge granting Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan  
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields      
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board