KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: Each case must be decided on its own merits.  Hearing Office decisions are not binding
on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Appeal Board.  A judge is presumed to have
considered all the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-16381.a1
DATE: 04/01/2009
DATE: April 1, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-16381
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On April 15, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
The Judge’s favorable findings under Guidelines C, F, and E are not at issue in this appeal.  1
2
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference),
Guideline B (Foreign Influence), 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 January 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Wilford
H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive
¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in failing to conclude
that Applicant had mitigated the Guideline B security concerns in his case.   Finding no error, we1
affirm. 
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 51-year-old employee
of a Defense contractor.  Born in Lebanon, he came to the U.S. to pursue his education.  He became
a U.S. citizen in the mid-1980s and received his B.A. degree in the year following.  He married his
wife, a Lebanese citizen and U.S. resident alien, in the early 2000s.  Applicant’s parents and brother
live in Lebanon, as does his mother-in-law.  He sends between $1,000 and $1,400 per month to both
families in Lebanon.  Applicant stated during his testimony that his parents are more important to
him than Lebanon, that he has loyalty to his relatives but not to Lebanon itself.  Although the U.S.
has close ties with Lebanon, that country has experienced social and political instability in the recent
past.  Lebanon’s internal policies are heavily influenced by Syria, which is a state sponsor of
terrorism.  Foreign terrorist organizations operate within Lebanon’s borders.  These include
Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government recognizes as a political party.  Hezbollah is allied with
Iran and has been involved in several attempts to obtain U.S. technology.  Lebanon has a poor human
rights record.  “Militias and non-Lebanese forces operating outside the area of Lebanese central
government authority have used informers and monitored telephones to obtain information about
their perceived adversaries.”  Decision at 4.
In support of his appeal, Applicant points to decisions by the Hearing Office, which he argues
support his request for a favorable determination.  The Board gives due consideration to these cases.
However, each case “must be decided upon its own merits.”  Directive ¶ E2.2.3.  Moreover, Hearing
Office decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board.  See ISCR
Case No. 06-24121 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2008).  Applicant argues that the Judge did not properly
consider his mitigating evidence regarding his strong ties to the U.S.  However, a party’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).   A Judge is presumed to have considered all the
evidence in the record unless he specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No 07-00196 at
3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009); ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  
3
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)).  The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national
security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision
at 12.  See also 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’”). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y: Ra’anan            
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin              
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board