KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline J
DIGEST: In this case, the Judge reasonably weighed the available mitigating evidence against
the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application
of relevant conditions and factors. She found in favor of Applicant under Guideline G and as to
one of the SOR factual allegations under Guideline J. However, she reasonably explained why
the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-06532.a1
DATE: 06/08/2017
DATE: June 8, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06532
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
December 2, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J
(Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the administrative record.  On February 22, 2017,
after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Carol
G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to the 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.
Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not respond
to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  In his appeal brief he states that the Judge’s
decision was “made in error and hastily” and recites some of the underlying facts in his case,
implying that the Judge did not correctly weigh the evidence.  He also presents some new evidence,
which the Board cannot consider on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant’s presentation does
not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
  
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. 15-02659 at
2 (App. Bd. Apr. 28, 2017).
In this case, the Judge reasonably weighed the available mitigating evidence against the
length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of
relevant conditions and factors. Decision at 4-7.  She found in favor of Applicant under Guideline
G and as to one of the SOR factual allegations under Guideline J.  However, she reasonably
explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security
concerns.  Id.  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
the decision.  “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.”  Therefore,
the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board