KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Judge gave too much weight to the
disqualifying circumstances while failing to consider, or mis-weighing, evidence in mitigation. 
Hearing Office decisions in other cases are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges or on
the Appeal Board.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 10-00272.a1
DATE: 05/24/2011
DATE: May 24, 2011
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-00272
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 May 26, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 11, 2011, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro 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
1In this case the Judge reached an adverse conclusion because Applicant’s mother-in-law, an Iranian
citizen, resides with Applicant part of the year and in Iran the other part of the year.
decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant argues that the Judge gave too much weight to the disqualifying circumstances
under Guideline B and either did not consider or did not give adequate weight to his evidence of
mitigation.1  His argument does not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or
contrary to law.
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to mitigate those concerns.  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, or vice versa.  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. 10-00278 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar.
18, 2011).
In support of his appeal, Applicant cites to other Hearing Office decisions which he believes
are similar to his case and in which the Judge granted the applicant a clearance.  While Hearing
Office decisions in other cases may be cited as persuasive authority, those cases are not binding
legal precedent which a Hearing Office Judge must follow in another situation.  Applicant’s reliance
on other Hearing Office decisions does not demonstrate that the Judge erred in this case.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 09-08417 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2011).
A review of the Judge’s decision indicates that he weighed the mitigating evidence offered
by Applicant against the seriousness of the disqualifying circumstances and considered the possible
application of relevant conditions and factors.  Decision at 6-8.  He found in favor of Applicant
under Guideline C and with respect to several of the SOR factual allegations under Guideline B.
However, he reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome all of
the government’s security concerns.  Id.
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) (quoting
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 158 (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 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: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board