KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Hearing level decisions are not legally binding precedent.  Applicant’s alternative
interpretation of the record is not sufficient to demonstrate error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-06952.a1
DATE: 04/24/2008
DATE: April 24, 2008
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-06952
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James J. McKee, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 25, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
The Judge found in favor of Applicant under Guideline C and with respect to SOR paragraph 1(b).  Those
1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 18, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 security
clearance decision under Guideline B is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns raised under
Guideline B had not been mitigated.     In support of that contention, Applicant essentially restates1
the facts of his case and argues that the Judge did not give adequate weight to the favorable evidence.
Based upon the record as a whole, Applicant asserts that the security concerns presented by his ties
to Iran were outweighed by his ties to the United States and his favorable character references.
Applicant also argues that the Judge’s overall unfavorable conclusion is inconsistent with another
hearing-level decision in which an applicant in ostensibly similar circumstances had been granted
a clearance.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge.
The Board gives due consideration to the case cited by Applicant. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
06-05903 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 15, 2007).  However, the Board has previously noted that decisions
in other hearing-level cases are not legally binding precedent, even if an applicant can establish close
factual similarities between those cases and his case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-04004 at 2 (App.
Bd. Jul. 31, 2006).  Accordingly, the Judge was not legally obligated to reconcile her decision in this
case with her decision in another ostensibly similar case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-24752 at 3
(App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2006).  “The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables
known as the whole-person concept.”  Directive at ¶ E2.2(a).  “Each case must be judged on its own
merits . . .” Id at ¶ E2.2(b).
 
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The presence of some mitigating evidence
does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable 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.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-09542 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4,
2007).  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. 04-08116 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2007). 
A review of the Judge’s decision indicates that the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence
offered by Applicant against the seriousness of the disqualifying circumstances, and considered the
possible application of relevant mitigating conditions and factors.  The Judge found in favor of
3
Applicant with respect to several of the factual allegations.  However, she reasonably explained why
the evidence which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome all the
government’s security concerns.  The Judge’s decision exhibits a discerning weighing of a number
of variables to reach a commonsense determination. Directive ¶ E2.2(c).  In some instances, this
process led to favorable findings for Applicant.  However, the Judge also articulated a reasonable
concern that Applicant's circumstances could create a conflict of interest or be used to influence,
manipulate, or pressure him.  That concern is based on close family ties in Iran, considered in the
context of the overall political/security profile of that country vis-a-vis the United States.  Applicant
offers an alternative interpretation of the record evidence.  However, that alternative interpretation
of the record evidence is insufficient to render the Judge’s interpretation arbitrary, capricious or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-19101 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 13, 2006).  The Judge has
articulated a rational explanation for her unfavorable determination under the disqualifying and
mitigating factors and the whole-person concept, and there is sufficient record evidence to support
that determination—given the standard that required the Judge to err on the side of national security.
Directive ¶ E2.2(b).
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: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board