KEYWORD: guideline H; Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a favorable security
clearance decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-02705.a1
DATE: 03/04/2008
DATE: March 4, 2008
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-02705
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 March 21, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement),
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August
31, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
To the extent that Applicant’s explanations constitute new evidence, they may not be considered by the Board.1
See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Such evidence would not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
06-00799 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 16, 2007).
2
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that
the security concerns raised under Guidelines H, E and J had not been mitigated.
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence.  In support of his contention,
Applicant essentially reargues his case, providing a detailed explanation as to the SOR allegations.1
Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 
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.  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
length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of
relevant mitigating conditions and whole-person factors.  The Judge reasonably explained why the
evidence which Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome 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 to law.  Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate
unfavorable security clearance decision under Guidelines H, E and J is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett   
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin    
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board