KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: A Judge’s weighing of the evidence will not be overturned unless it is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-03479.a1
DATE: 02/17/2009
DATE: February 17, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-03479
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 June 23, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 8, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson 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 erred in concluding that
The Judge’s favorable finding under Guideline F is not at issue on appeal.1
Applicant requests a “compromise” in which he would be allowed to retain a security clearance so that he can2
continue to be employed, even if he is not allowed the same level of access (or any access) that he had previously held.
Under Directive ¶ 3.2, there is no authority to deny a clearance at one level but grant a clearance at a lower one.  “An
unfavorable clearance decision denies any application for a security clearance and revokes any existing security
clearance, thereby preventing access to classified information at any level and the retention of any existing security
clearance.” Id.; See ISCR Case No. 94-0947 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 1995).
Applicant’s falsification of his security clearance application was deliberate.1
Applicant contends that he did not deliberately falsify his security clearance application by
failing to disclose information of security concern in response to four different questions.  Applicant
has not demonstrated that the Judge erred.
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.
A review of the decision indicates that the Judge reasonably considered Applicant’s
explanation for why he failed to disclose the information in question in light of the record evidence
as a whole.  Given the record that was before her, the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is
sustainable.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1; ISCR Case No. 04-03849 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 26, 2007).
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).  Accordingly, the Judge’s
adverse decision under Guideline E is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.2
 
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: Jean E. Smallin            
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board