KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline M; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Board has inherent authority to entertain a request for reconsideration, however,
there is no right to reconsideration.  The Board’s prior decision embraced the subject or
mitigation when it concluded that the record as a whole does not support a favorable decision. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 03-23504.a2
DATE: 02/22/2008
DATE: February 22, 2008
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 03-23504
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Rebecca L. Saitta, Esq.
See, e. g., Government’s Appeal Brief at 15: “The Administrative Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious,1
and contrary to law because he substituted a credibility determination for record evidence.”  
2
On December 12, 2007, the Board issued an Appeal Board Decision in Applicant’s case.  On
January 9, 2008, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision.  Department
Counsel submitted a response on January 24, 2008.  
The Board has inherent authority to entertain a request to reconsider its decisions.  However,
there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise
its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions.  See ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App.
Bd. Nov. 23, 1999).  
Applicant raises the following issue in his request for reconsideration: whether the Board
failed to consider appropriate mitigating conditions in its analysis of Applicant’s case.  Applicant
requests that the Board either affirm the Judge’s decision or remand the case to the Judge to evaluate
whether Applicant has established mitigation.  However, consideration of possible mitigating
conditions is fairly embraced in the Board’s analysis of the issues raised in Department Counsel’s
original appeal brief  and in the Board’s conclusion that the record as a whole does not sustain a1
favorable decision.  
The Board addressed the Judge’s favorable assessment of Applicant’s credibility in its earlier
decision.  In light of that discussion and other evidence explicitly discussed in the Board decision,
it is not plausible to entertain the possibility that a Judge could reasonably find Applicant’s conduct
mitigated on this record.  Accordingly, Applicant’s request for the Board to affirm the Judge’s
decision or remand the case is denied.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board