KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge has considered all the record evidence. 
The presence of some mitigating evidence does compel the Judge to make a favorable security
clearance decision.  Given the record, the Judge conclusion that applicant intentionally provided
false or misleading information on his security clearance application is sustainable.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 03-07412.a1
DATE: 04/09/2007
DATE: April 9, 2007
In Re:
-------
SSN: ----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 03-07412
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 16, 2004 DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
2
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended)(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 28, 2006, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. 
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to apply the “whole
person” concept when evaluating his case, and whether the Judge’s decision not to apply mitigating
factors in Applicant’s favor was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.  The Board affirms the
Judge’s decision. 
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in not considering the “whole person” concept, and by
ignoring Applicant’s stable family and work life, his honorable military career, and his efforts to take
control of his financial life.  Applicant also argues that the Judge erred by ignoring facts in the record
which resulted in a conclusion that, ultimately, mitigation had not been established.  As Applicant’s
arguments about the “whole person” concept and mitigation are interrelated, they will be discussed
together.
Regarding both the “whole person” analysis and mitigation, Applicant asserts that the Judge
did not fully present and consider evidence favorable to him.  There is a rebuttable presumption that
the Judge has considered all the record evidence unless the Judge specifically states otherwise.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-22566 at 3 (App. Bd. June 26, 2003).  Furthermore, the Judge was not
required to discuss each and every piece of evidence in his decision.  A review of the Judge’s
decision reveals that there were significant references to evidence favorable to Applicant.  Applicant
has not met his burden of establishing that the Judge ignored record evidence.
The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole person factors does not
turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their
application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-14740 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2003).  Thus, the presence of some mitigating
evidence does not compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.  As the trier of
fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence
outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  An Applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-08934 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug.
17, 2006).
In this case, after a review of the record and the Judge’s decision, the Board concludes that
the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the seriousness of the
disqualifying conduct, and adequately considered the possible application of relevant mitigating
conditions and whole person factors.  The Judge explicitly applied one mitigating factor to
Applicant’s history of overdue indebtedness under Guideline F, but articulated a rational basis for
concluding that the evidence relating to the factor was not of a magnitude to support an ultimate
conclusion in Applicant’s favor.  Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s conclusion that
Applicant had intentionally provided false or misleading information on his security clearance
application is sustainable.  The Judge’s decision not to apply mitigating factors to the falsification
3
allegations under Guideline E is also sustainable.  The Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance
decision is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09488 at 2-3
(App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2006).      
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a clearance is  AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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