KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s conclusion that, given the record, Applicant’s abstinence from marijuana
use since October 2006 was not sufficient to guarantee against recurrence is supported by the
record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-13010.a1
DATE: 01/27/2009
DATE: January 27, 2009
In Re:
-------------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-13010
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Henry A. Sullivan, Esq. and Kelley L. Finnerty, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
The Judge found in favor of Applicant regarding Guideline E.  That portion of the case is not at issue on appeal.1
clearance.  On May 30, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On October 29, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: (a) whether the Judge failed to consider
record evidence; (b) whether the Judge’s application of the Guideline H mitigating conditions is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; and (c) whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis is
arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.   For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s1
unfavorable decision. 
A recurring theme in Applicant’s brief is his assertion that the Judge either overlooked or
ignored facts in the evidentiary record when reaching her conclusions in the case.  Applicant proffers
this argument in the context of the Judge’s application of the Guideline H mitigating factors and in
the context of the Judge’s application of the whole-person analysis.  Some of the specific facts that
Applicant maintains the Judge did not consider include Applicant’s decision to stop attending yearly
reunions of his college friends where marijuana was smoked, some arguably less aggrevating aspects
of his marijuana use, such as the facts that he never became dependent upon it and his use never
affected his work, his substantial security industry experience, his professional accomplishments,
his community involvement, and the testimony of Applicant’s Facility Security Officer that
Applicant is an extremely reliable individual who takes his security duties seriously.    
There is a rebuttable presumption that an administrative judge has considered all the record
evidence unless he or she specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 96-0608 at 3 (App.
Bd. Aug. 28, 1997).  Also, there is no requirement that a judge discuss or cite every piece of record
evidence in a decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-00305 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2003).  After a
review of the record and the Judge’s decision, the Board concludes that Applicant has failed to
overcome the presumption that the Judge considered the entire record.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments go to the weight the Judge assigned various portions
of the record evidence and to the manner in which the Judge interpreted specific pieces of evidence
when evaluating both the applicability of mitigating factors and when conducting a whole-person
analysis.  Applicant discusses evidence such as Applicant’s actions during social gatherings with
college friends and the pattern of Applicant’s recent efforts to abstain from involvement with
marijuana.  The gravamen of Applicant’s arguments is that the Judge’s decision not to apply the
Guideline H mitigating factors in Applicant’s favor is arbitrary and capricious.  Applicant has not
demonstrated that the Judge has committed error.
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).  
In this case, the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the
seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant
conditions and factors.  While citing specific Guideline H mitigating factors, the Judge reasonably
explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security
concerns.  Specifically, the Judge’s concluded that, given all of the circumstances indicated by the
record, Applicant’s abstinence from marijuana use since October 2006 was not sufficient to
guarantee against recurrence.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence
cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  After reviewing
the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a
satisfactory explanation for her 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)).  “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).  Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline H
is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan 
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board