KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: The weight assigned to evidence is a matter within the Judge’s discretion.  We will not
disturb a Judge’s weighing of the evidence unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. In
a whole-person analysis, a Judge should evaluate an applicant’s conduct and circumstances in
light of the record as a whole.  We find no error in the Judge’s analysis. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 14-04587.a1
DATE: 12/23/2015
DATE: December 23, 2015
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04587
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Richard Morris, Esq.
2
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
October 22, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2,
1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On October 7, 2015, after the
hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline B are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
In 2013, Applicant was in a department store.  She examined some baby clothes as a possible
gift for a friend, placing them in her bag.  She decided not to pay for the clothes and left the store.
Stopped by a store official, she was searched.  The official took the clothes as well as some
sunglasses, which Applicant contended actually belonged to her.  However, authorities treated these
items as contraband as well, despite Applicant’s claims to the contrary.  
Applicant was charged with Felony Grand Larceny.  Applicant pled to this offense and
completed 63 hours of community service.  Applicant will be on probation until March 2016,
although she has been on a lower level of supervision since March 2014.  After completion of
probation, authorities will decide if the offense should be dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor.
Applicant states that this is an isolated event.  She had the money to pay for the clothes and does not
know why she took them.  Applicant is ashamed of her conduct and avers that she has learned from
her mistake.
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of her job performance, as well as
for her trustworthiness.  She has received numerous awards from her job and from her school.
The Judge’s Analysis
As stated above, the Judge resolved the Guideline B allegations in Applicant’s favor.
Regarding Guideline J, however, the Judge noted that Applicant remains on probation.  She
characterized Applicant’s misconduct as recent and as a serious lapse in judgment.  In the whole-
person analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s plea of guilty and her completion of community
service.  However, she concluded that, insofar as Applicant remains on probation, it is too soon to
tell if she has mitigated the concerns in her case.
Discussion
3
Applicant contends that the Judge did not perform a proper whole-person analysis.  She
argues that the Judge placed too much weight on a single factor, her ongoing probation.  She argues
that the evidence as a whole shows that she has rehabilitated herself and that she has mitigated the
concerns arising from her misconduct.  The weight that a Judge assigns to evidence is a matter
within his or her discretion.  We will not disturb a Judge’s weighing of the evidence unless it is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05251 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct.
5, 2015).  In performing a whole-person analysis, a Judge should evaluate an applicant’s conduct
and circumstances in light of the record as a whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-04813 at 4 (App.
Bd. Jul. 31, 2015).    We find no error in the Judge’s analysis.  Applicant admitted the conduct at
issue here, including her probationary status, which in and of itself is a disqualifying condition.
Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 31(d).  Accordingly, Applicant bore the burden of persuasion that she
should have a clearance.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Given the seriousness of the offense, the
circumstances underlying it (including evidence that she could have paid for the clothing but simply
chose not to), and her ongoing probation, we find no error in the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant
had failed to meet her burden of persuasion.  We find no reason to conclude that the Judge weighed
the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Moreover, we conclude
that the Judge complied with the requirements of the Directive in performing her whole-person
analysis.
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):  “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 Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board