KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-09986.a1
DATE: 03/18/2010
DATE: March 18, 2010
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-09986
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 27, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption),
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
December 31, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
either did not consider or did not correctly weigh Applicant’s mitigating evidence.  Applicant argues
that this evidence was sufficient to warrant a favorable decision.  Applicant has not demonstrated
that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 08-05344 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Feb. 3, 2010) and ISCR Case No. 08-11782 at 2 (App.
Bd. Feb. 17, 2010).  In this case, the evidence Applicant relies on was explicitly cited by the Judge
on pages 2, 3, and 4 of the decision.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all the evidence.  Furthermore, 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).  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).
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant was arrested three times between 2004 and
December 2007 for infractions  related to drunk driving and a consequent automobile  accident.  She
also found that Applicant intentionally and deliberately withheld information from his security
clearance application.  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.  The Judge reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence 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 the 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
3
‘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 unfavorable security clearance decision 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
Chairperson, 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