KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Claims of error must be raised with specificity.  Applicant failed to do so.  The Judge
failed to consider evidence that Applicant had complied with security procedures in high-risk
circumstances.  However, this error did not affect the overall outcome of the case and, therefore,
was harmless.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 12-09326
DATE: 06/18/2013
DATE: June 18, 2013
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-09326
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense  (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 28, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be decided on the
written record.  On April 4, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals Administrative Judge Martine H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains  new evidence, in the form of several documentary exhibits,
and a detailed narrative statement elaborating upon the information which Applicant provided in
response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  Applicant states that she is
presenting her case again in order to explain herself better.  Applicant’s Brief at 2.  The Board
cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  The Appeal Board’s
authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge
committed harmful error.  
There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party has the burden of raising
and demonstrating factual and legal error by the Judge.  Such claims of error must be made with
specificity.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-06437 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 11, 2013).  In her brief,
Applicant makes the general assertion that the Judge’s decision is unjust and a complete mis-
characterization of her true character. Applicant’s Brief at 2.   Applicant’s blanket assertion in this
regard lacks the requisite specificity.  Id.
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  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 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 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. 11-00982 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun.
12, 2012).
The Board has previously noted that, as a general rule, an applicant’s prior history of
complying with security procedures and regulations is considered to be of relatively low probative
value for the purpose of refuting, mitigating, or extenuating the security concerns raised by that
applicant’s more immediate disqualifying conduct.  However, the Board has also recognized that
history may be accorded greater weight in cases where the security concern is not a result of
Applicant’s conduct, such as in Guideline B cases, and the applicant has established by credible,
independent evidence that compliance with security procedures and regulations occurred in the
context of dangerous, high-risk circumstances in which the applicant had made a significant
contribution to the national security.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25928 at 4 (Apr. 9, 2008); ISCR
Case No. 10-02803 at 6 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2012).  That type of evidence was present in this case,
and the Judge should have analyzed the Guideline B security concerns more fully in the context of
that evidence.  But remand of the case for such analysis would not change the ultimate outcome,
given the Judge’s sustainable adverse findings under Guidelines F and E.
 
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.
3
“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 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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board