KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: It is within a Judge’s discretion to conclude that an applicant has mitigated some of the
allegations against him but not others.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-06958.a1
DATE: 10/28/2016
DATE: October 28, 2016
In Re:
----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06958
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 22, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the
written record.  On August 16, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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 was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: Applicant
works for a Defense contractor.  She has held a clearance since 2002.  Applicant was born in South
Korea and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the late 1990s.  She maintains contact with several
relatives in South Korea.  She has a cousin whose spouse works for a contractor of the South Korean
government.  Another relative works for the South Korean government itself.  Applicant admitted
that, when asked by her relatives,  what she does for a living, she provided an answer that could have
alerted them to the fact that she holds a security clearance.  She also was involved in a security
violation in 2013.  She had been in charge of a locked, classified filing cabinet.  It was discovered
that the log pertaining to the cabinet contained an error about the status of a classified document. 
As a consequence of this infraction, Applicant’s employer changed the combination to the lock and
required Applicant to request assistance of another employee whenever she needed access.1
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cleared Applicant regarding allegations about the citizenship status of her mother
and children.  However, he entered adverse findings regarding an allegation about Applicant’s
contact with citizens and residents of South Korea, including the government contractor, and another
concerning the employee of the South Korean government.  In concluding that Applicant had not
mitigated concerns arising from these foreign connections, the Judge cited to evidence of her
security violation and her possible lack of discretion in comments about the nature of her job.  He
stated that a Judge must resolve doubts in favor of national security.  Accordingly, he concluded that
Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion.
Discussion
Applicant notes that the Judge found Applicant’s evidence sufficient to mitigate some of the
concerns raised by the SOR.  She contends it was not consistent for the Judge to have entered
adverse findings regarding the other ones.  We have considered the Judge’s decision in light of the
1Applicant’s disclosures about her job and her security infraction were not alleged in the SOR.  The Judge stated
that he was considering them for the limited purpose of evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation and for performing
a whole-person analysis.  Decision at 5, Note 8.  See ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006).
2
entirety of the record.  His findings and analysis provide a reasonable basis for his ultimate
conclusions.  It is within a Judge’s discretion to conclude that an applicant has mitigated some of
the allegations against him but not others.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03747 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov.
13, 2015).  Applicant has cited to Hearing Office cases in support of her effort to maintain her
clearance.  We give these cases due consideration, but Hearing Office decisions are not binding on
other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., Id. at 3.  
Applicant’s appeal brief consists in large measure of a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of
the evidence, including evidence about her indiscreet disclosure of the nature of her duties.  An
ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence in not enough to show that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016).
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 Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3