KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The effect an adverse decision may have on an applicant is not a material
consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-02320.a1
DATE: 05/25/2012
DATE: May 25, 2012
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-02320
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 July 5, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
1The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline F are not at issue on appeal.
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On September 9, 2011, the SOR was amended to include security concerns
under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J
(Criminal Conduct).  On February 29, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E.
Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious or contrary to law.  Specifically, Applicant points to his truthfulness, his job performance,
and his military record.  He contends that the Judge should have accorded greater weight to his
evidence of mitigation.1    
The Judge found that between 2002 and 2010, Applicant had several instances of domestic
violence involving his wife or son.  Three of the incidents resulted in criminal convictions.  Two of
the events involved alcohol consumption.  Applicant is on probation until 2013.
In support of his appeal, Applicant made statements which constitute new evidence.  The
Board cannot consider new evidence.  See Directive, ¶ E3.l.29.  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06875
at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009).
Applicant contends that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law,
arguing that the Judge did not consider or did not give adequate weight to his truthfulness, his  job
performance, and his military record.  Applicant also maintains that the Judge should have accorded
greater weight to his explanations for his criminal record.  There is a rebuttable presumption that the
Judge considered all the record evidence, unless the Judge specifically states otherwise, and there
is no requirement that the Judge mention or discuss every piece of record evidence when reaching
a decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01520 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 24, 2011).   In this case, the
Judge mentioned Applicant’s military record. The application of disqualifying and mitigating
conditions and whole-person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them
apply to the particular facts of a case.  Thus, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not
alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance determination.  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.  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 that 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. 06-23384 at 3 (App. Bd.
Nov. 23, 2007).
Applicant states that loss of his job due to denial of a security clearance will have an adverse
impact on him and on his employer.  However, the effect that an adverse decision may have on an
applicant is not a relevant or material consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility.  See,
e.g.,ISCR Case No. 08-07528 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2009). 
3
After reviewing the record as a whole, 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 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 Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board