KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Given the totality of the record evidence the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant
deliberately falsified his security clearance application is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-10749.a1
DATE: 10/10/2008
DATE: October 10, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-10749
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 6, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
The Judge’s favorable finding under Guideline F is not at issue on appeal.1
2
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 30, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding
Applicant had deliberately falsified his security clearance application; and whether the Judge’s
adverse clearance decision under Guideline E is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.1
 
(1) Applicant argues that he did not deliberately falsify three different questions on his
security clearance application by failing to disclose the fact that he had six debts totaling
approximately $38,000 that were currently more than 90 or 180 days delinquent, and that he had
been a party to a civil action for damages in excess of $15,000.  In support of that argument, he
essentially asserts that the Judge was required to accept, as a matter of law, his explanation that he
believed he did not need to disclose that information in response to the questions.  Applicant’s
argument in this regard does not demonstrate that the Judge erred.
A review of the Judge’s decision indicates that he considered Applicant’s explanation for
why he failed to disclose the information in question.  The Judge was not bound, as a matter of law,
to accept or reject Applicant’s explanation.  The Judge considered Applicant’s explanation in light
of the record evidence as a whole, and concluded there was a sufficient basis to find that Applicant’s
omission was deliberate and intentional.  Given the plain language of the questions at issue and the
totality of the record evidence, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had deliberately falsified his
security clearance application is sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-02163 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb.
28, 2008); ISCR Case No. 06-16159 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 10, 2008).
(2) Applicant also contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the
Judge did not give adequate weight to the mitigating evidence, including his outstanding work
performance and his favorable community ties.  Again, Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate
that the Judge erred. 
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.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 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. 06-17409 at 3
(App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).
3
A review of the decision indicates that the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered
by Applicant against the recency and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the
possible application of relevant mitigating conditions and whole-person factors.  He found in favor
of Applicant under Guideline F.  However, he reasonably explained why the evidence which the
Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s other security
concerns.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” 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)).  An applicant with
good or exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative security implications.
The Guidelines set forth in the Directive address a variety of examples of conduct and circumstances
which are a security concern to the government and require a whole-person analysis to determine an
applicant’s security eligibility.  A whole-person analysis is by its very nature not confined to the
workplace.  See, e.g. ISCR Case No. 03-19006 at 6 (App. Bd. Oct. 17, 2005).  Therefore, the Judge’s
ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline E is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security 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