KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: The Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence.  He is not required to cite
or discuss every piece of record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-04242.a1
DATE: 10/07/2008
DATE: October 7, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-04242
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James N. Apostle, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 28, 2007, 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 June 24, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact are supported by substantial record evidence; whether the Judge erred in his application of the
pertinent mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge erred in his whole person analysis.  Finding
no error we affirm.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 52-year-old linguist
for a defense contractor.  Born and raised in Sudan, he worked for a civilian business in that country.
He immigrated to the U.S. in the 1980s, becoming a U.S. citizen soon thereafter.  He retains dual
citizenship with Sudan.
Applicant has five siblings who are citizens of Sudan.  One lives in a European country and
recently became a citizen of that country.  Another lives and works in a middle eastern country.  The
remaining three reside in Sudan.  Applicant has weekly to monthly contact with his siblings.  He is
married to a Sudanese woman who recently became a U.S. citizen.  Applicant and his wife have
three children.  His parents-in-law are Sudanese citizens residing in another country.  Applicant’s
wife maintains regular contact with them (about two times a month) and Applicant speaks with them
himself upon occasion.  Applicant’s wife has six siblings who reside in Sudan.  She has other
siblings residing in other countries.  She has monthly contact with her siblings in Sudan.  
The U.S. State Department has designated Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism.  It is the
subject of trade restrictions.  Sudan has committed numerous human rights violations, and United
Nations peacekeepers report systematic rape of women and children in the Darfur region.  Other
violations include arbitrary arrest and detention, denial of due process, and trafficking in persons.
The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record
evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the same record.”) To the extent that the Judge’s findings contain error, the Board
concludes that such error is harmless.  For example Applicant argues that the Judge erred in stating
that Applicant pays $500.00 to his siblings living in Sudan.  This finding appears to have been based,
at least in part, on Government Exhibit 2, Personal Subject Interview, at 5: “Subject noted that he
sends his siblings money to help out every month.  Subject noted that he sends $500.00 a month
total.”  Applicant points to his testimony that he had stopped sending the money after his siblings
married.  Tr. at 43.  However, even if the Judge had made a finding on this matter consistent with
Applicant’s testimony at the hearing, such a finding would not likely have resulted in a favorable
3
security clearance decision when viewed in light of the record as a whole.  See ISCR Case No. 06-
23112 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 31, 2007).  
Applicant contends that the Judge erred by not assigning sufficient weight to matters he
believes favorable to his case, for example that his siblings live in a part of Sudan that enjoys relative
security.  However, “[a]n applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing 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 ISCR Case No. 07-10454 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug.
12, 2008).  Furthermore, the “Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record
unless he specifically states otherwise.  He is not required to cite or discuss every piece of record
evidence.”  See ISCR Case No.07-04504 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2008)(internal citations omitted).
In light of the record as a whole, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts
found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision, both as regards the mitigating conditions
and the whole-person factors.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also
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
Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue
Applicant’s security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 12.  Department of the
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)  (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted
only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security’”).  See also ISCR Case No.
05-03250 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2007) (In Guideline B cases, the presence of terrorist activity in
the country involved, as well as the country’s human rights record, are important considerations
which “must be brought to bear on the Judge’s ultimate conclusions in the case”).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.    
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple          
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board