KEYWORD: Guideline B: Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification are sustainable given the record. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-15434.a1
DATE: 01/15/2009
DATE: January 15, 2009
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-15434
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 May 1, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  The SOR was later
amended to add allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct).  Applicant requested that the case
be decided on the written record.  On November 10, 2008, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 that
Applicant had deliberately falsified his security clearance application and whether the Judge’s
adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline B.  As to the
Guideline E allegations, Applicant contends that he did not deliberately falsify his security clearance
application by failing to disclose that he had been employed by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of
Education and that he possessed an expired Syrian passport.  In support of this contention, he argues
that he was confused by the questions that asked for the disclosure of the aforesaid information.
Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred.
Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written administrative record.  As a result,
the Judge did not have an opportunity to question him about the omissions and evaluate his
credibility in the context of a hearing.  A review of the Judge’s decision indicates that the Judge
considered Applicant’s explanation as to 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 omissions were deliberate and intentional.  Given the
record that was before him, the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is sustainable.
 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 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. 06-17691 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul.19,
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 limited mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against
the seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant
mitigating conditions and whole-person factors.  He reasonably explained why the evidence which
Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s 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)
3
(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).  Accordingly, the
Judge’s ultimate adverse decision under Guidelines B and E 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