KEYWORD: Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s decision states that Applicant’s response to the SOR contain admissions
but no explanations.  The presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence is rebutted with
regard to Applicant’s explanations included in the SOR response.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 11-05217.a1
DATE: 05/04/2012
DATE: May 4, 2012
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-05217
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 28, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On February 22, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C.
Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
As a threshold issue, we note Applicant’s contention in his appeal brief that the Judge did
not consider all of the record evidence.  Applicant included a copy of his response to the SOR, in
which he admitted the allegations and provided detailed explanations for his conduct.  However, in
his Summary of Pleadings, the Judge stated the following: “In his response to the SOR, Applicant
admitted each of the allegations.  He provided no explanations.”  Decision at 2.  A Judge is
presumed to have considered all of the record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-03025 at 3
(App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2012).  However, in this case, the Judge’s comment raises in a reasonable mind
the belief that the Judge did not consider Applicant’s explanations included in the SOR response.
Accordingly, Applicant has rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record
evidence.  We remand the case to the Judge for a new decision, after which the case will be
processed in accordance with the Directive.  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is REMANDED.  
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