KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge did not address the security concerns presented by Applicant’s husband. 
The Judge should issue a new decision.  Favorable decision remanded.
CASENO: 06-07292.a1
DATE: 04/16/2008
DATE: April 16, 2008
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-07292
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace L. Le’i, 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 April 12, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision–security concerns raised under  Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E
The Judge’s favorable finding under Guideline E is not challenged on appeal.1
2
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On November 27, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Department Counsel filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s favorable
security clearance decision under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   Finding1
error, we remand the case to the Judge for the issuance of a new decision.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Factual Findings
A.  Facts
The Judge made the following relevant findings of fact related to the Guideline B allegations:
Applicant’s husband was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, but has now surrendered his
Israeli passport and renounced his Israeli citizenship.
Applicant’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law are citizens and residents of Israel.  They do not
speak English and Applicant’s Hebrew is very limited.  Therefore, although Applicant’s husband
speaks with his mother and sister on a regular basis, Applicant, for the most part, is unable to
communicate with them.  
B. Discussion
The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of facts is limited to determining if they
are supported by substantial evidence–“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”  Directive
¶ E3.1.32.1.  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing
two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding
from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S.
607, 620-21 (1966).  In evaluating the Judge’s findings, we are required to give deference to the
Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  
To the extent that the Judge’s findings are relevant to the assigned error, they will be
discussed below.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Ultimate Conclusions
 A Judge is required to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation
for” the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.’”
“[S]haring living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates2
a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.”
See Decision at 6.3
In her reply brief, Applicant’s counsel points out that Department Counsel did not argue for the applicability4
of DC 7(d) at the time of the hearing in either her opening or closing statements.  However, Applicant’s contention in
that regard is of no moment.  As in all cases, the Judge was obligated to consider the record evidence as a whole in
conjunction with all pertinent conditions and factors. 
3
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  The Appeal
Board may reverse the Judge’s decision to grant, deny, or revoke a security clearance if it is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.
In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board
will review the Judge's decision to determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails
to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of
judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision
that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere
difference of opinion.  In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law,
the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the
Directive, or other applicable federal law.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2,
2006).
Department Counsel argues that the Judge erred in not applying Guideline B Disqualifying
Condition (DC) 7(d).   Department Counsel also argues that the Judge erred in her analysis of the2
government’s security concerns by focusing only on Applicant’s relationship with her in-laws,
instead of broadening that analysis to include the relationship between Applicant and her husband,
whose clearance she denied.  It is Department Counsel’s contention that this error is harmful because
the security concerns presented by the independent, disqualifying relationship between Applicant and
her husband could not be mitigated under the rationale given by the Judge in her decision.3
Department Counsel’s argument has merit.
In her decision, the Judge only applied DC 7(a), and analyzed Applicant’s situation only in
the limited context of the security concerns presented by her relationship with her in-laws.  The
Judge did not discuss the application of DC 7(d), even though such a discussion was warranted by
the record, and did not reasonably address the security concerns presented by the relationship
between Applicant and her husband, whose clearance the Judge denied.    Accordingly, the Judge’s4
favorable clearance decision is not sustainable.  The Judge should issue a new decision which
4
discusses the application of DC 7(d) in light of the Judge’s ultimate findings and conclusions with
regard to Applicant’s husband.
Order
 The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is REMANDED.
Signed:Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
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