KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The judge was not bound to accept Applicant’s explanation.  Rather he considered it in
light of the record as a whole..  The Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is sustainable. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-06986.
DATE: 01/31/2011
DATE: January 31, 2011
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06986
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
1The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline F and as to SOR paragraphs 2.a-2.d and 2.f are not at issue
on appeal. 
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 19, 2010, 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 November 15, 2010, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
failed to accept his explanation as to why his omission of information from his Security Clearance
Application (SCA) was not deliberate and intentional.  Applicant also argues that the Judge failed
to consider the fact that Applicant had served 25 years in the Navy, retiring at the rank of Senior
Chief Petty Officer (E-8), under the whole-person concept.1  Applicant’s arguments do not
demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
In reaching his decision, the Judge specifically considered “Applicant’s honorable service
to this country in the U.S. military” as part of his analysis under the whole-person concept.  Decision
at 12.  However, 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).
With respect to the falsification of Applicant’s SCA, the Judge specifically considered
Applicant’s explanation for why he failed to disclose the information in question.  Decision at 7, 12.
However, the Judge was not bound, as a matter of law, to accept or reject that explanation.  Rather,
the Judge considered that explanation in light of the record evidence as a whole, including
Applicant’s experience with the security clearance process and the fact that he had given
inconsistent information about his finances throughout that process, and concluded there was a
sufficient basis to find that Applicant’s omissions were deliberate and intentional.  On this record,
the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is sustainable.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
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
3
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
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: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board