KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not
sufficient to demonstrate error.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant does not show that the
Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 04-08116.a1
DATE: 07/02/2007
DATE: July 2, 2007
In Re:
---------
SSN:---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-08116
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 June 9, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On December 11, 2006, after the hearing,  Administrative Judge John Grattan
The Judge found in Applicant’s favor with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f.  Those1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.  As part of his appeal, Applicant offers new evidence in the form of
additional explanations about his circumstances.  The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29.  Its submission does not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03143 at
2 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2006).
2
Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant
to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.1
Applicant contends essentially that the Judge erred in weighing the evidence in this case and
that his overall unfavorable decision under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
In support of that contention, Applicant argues that he does not discuss his work with his father in
India; his father is now retired; he is financially independent; he is not in a position to be exploited;
and he has never been involved in activities against the United States. Applicant also emphasizes his
contacts with the United States including the fact that he has voted in U.S. elections, has served on
a jury, and pays taxes.
The Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in concluding
that the security concerns raised by his foreign ties and connections had not been mitigated.
Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions, he has not established that those
conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3.
The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions 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 alone
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.
In this case, the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the
nature and seriousness of the disqualifying circumstances, and considered the possible application
of relevant mitigating conditions.  The Judge found in favor of the Applicant with respect to all but
one of the factual allegations.  However, the Judge reasonably explained why the evidence which
the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome all of the government’s
security concerns.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable record evidence cited
by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
3
to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. June 29, 2005).  Given the record that was
before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline B is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael D. Hipple   
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin        
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board