1The SOR is undated.  Applicant’s reply to the SOR is dated July 6, 2012.
KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Appeal Board is required to defer to a Judge’s credibility determination.  We
examine a Judge’s findings of fact to see if they are supported by substantial record evidence. 
The Judge’s whole-person analysis complied with the Directive in that it considered the totality
of Applicant’s conduct.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 10-06089
DATE: 09/11/2013
DATE: September 11, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-06089
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Amy C. Broderick, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  DoD
issued a statement of reasons (SOR)1 advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security
concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On June 25, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings of fact
contained errors; whether the Judge’s credibility determination was erroneous; whether the Judge
failed properly to apply the mitigating conditions; whether the whole-person analysis was erroneous;
and whether the overall decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge’s findings consisted in large measure of detailed summaries of witnesses’
testimonies, with his resolution of conflicts among those witnesses being reserved for the Analysis.
In essence, the Judge made the following findings:  Applicant worked for a contractor who permitted
those of his employees who were pilots to spend five hours a month flying in order to maintain their
skills.  Applicant’s employer would reimburse the employee for costs associated with this
proficiency training.  The vice president of Applicant’s employer discovered an apparent
discrepancy in documentation concerning Applicant’s training flights.  After visiting the aero club
where this training purportedly occurred, examining documentation, and speaking with persons at
the club, the employer discovered that Applicant had been submitting claims and receiving
compensation for flights that he had never actually undertaken.  Among other things, they
discovered that Applicant had repeatedly used a blank copy of the same voucher rather than a
separate voucher for each claim.  The employer fired Applicant due to this misconduct. 
The Judge’s Analysis
In the Analysis, the Judge explained why he found the inculpatory evidence provided by
Applicant’s employer and the vice president of the company to be more credible than Applicant’s
denials of wrongdoing.  He stated that he found the testimony of these two persons to be credible
because they seemed surprised and disappointed by Applicant’s misconduct; they had devoted a
substantial amount of time to examining the records of the aero club; and Government auditing
practices would not have permitted Applicant to have submitted multiple receipts from a single
voucher, as Applicant testified he had been authorized to do.  The Judge also explained why he did
not find credible Applicant’s evidence, principally a flight log and a chart derived therefrom, that
purported to support his denial of wrongdoing.  The Judge stated that these documents were written
by Applicant and were not corroborated by independent evidence.  He concluded that Applicant’s
conduct raised security concerns under both Guidelines alleged in the SOR and that none of the
mitigating conditions applied.  He concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns in his
case.
Discussion
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in finding that he had deliberately submitted false
vouchers for flight training.  In presenting his appeal he challenges the Judge’s credibility
determination.  He contends that his own evidence was more worthy of belief than that of the
Department Counsel.  We examine a Judge’s findings of fact to see if they are supported by
substantial evidence, that is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
2“Normally, we don’t get Invoices with the same number, and that was the problem we had when we went to
the Aero Club.  You know, all these Invoices were just the same number . . . And, you know, we talked to the Aero Club
Manager . . . The guy just basically threw in the towel and said – look, [Applicant] hasn’t been here for months.  I
haven’t [seen] him.  So, the one airplane that he is actually claiming he was flying had been down for maintenance for
some time.  So, he said he noticed that airplane hasn’t been flying for a long [time].”  Tr. at 51-52.   
3Government Exhibit (GE) 3, Personnel Documents, includes a transcription of text messages Applicant sent
to the employee.  Applicant stated that he had “[s]ubmitted . . . re-embursement (sic) even when didn’t fly.”  Applicant
acknowledged that he had “no leg to stand on.”  GE 3 at 8-9.
3
to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶
E3.2.32.1.  See ISCR Case No. 11-00970 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 28, 2012).  We are required to defer
to a Judge’s credibility determination.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See ISCR Case No. 09-00266 at 4
(App. Bd. Jan. 26, 2012).  However, this deference does not immunize a credibility determination
from review or preclude us from concluding that a challenged credibility determination cannot be
sustained, in light of the totality of the record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-17801 at 6
(App. Bd. Dec. 5, 2012).  
We have considered the Judge’s essential findings in light of the record.  The two witnesses
for the Government provided detailed, mutually corroborating testimonies that were not undermined
on cross-examination.2  These testimonies were corroborated by independent documentary evidence.
By contrast we note that Applicant’s case rested in large measure on his own uncorroborated denials
of misconduct.  Moreover, his testimony at the hearing was contradicted by evidence that he had
admitted the wrongdoing to a fellow employee.3  The evidence provides no reason to disturb the
Judge’s credibility determination.  We conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security
concern are based upon substantial record evidence.  
Applicant contends that the Judge should have extended more weight to the flight log.
However, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for an
alternative interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge’s treatment
of the evidence was unreasonable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-02471 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 11,
2007).  The Judge provided a reasonable explanation as to why he discounted the flight log, for
example that it was partly illegible and that it was not corroborated by other evidence.  Applicant
has not demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed this evidence.  
The Judge’s discussion of the mitigating conditions and whole-person factors was somewhat
cursory.  However, given his detailed explanation of why he found the allegations to have been
substantiated and his supportable credibility determination, the Judge’s conclusion that none of the
mitigating conditions applied was consistent with the record that was before him.  The Judge’s
whole-person analysis complied with Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(a), in that he considered the totality
of Applicant’s conduct in reaching his decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-03598 at 3 (App. Bd.
Oct. 10, 2012).  The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
the decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
4
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
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