KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08577.a1
DATE: 07/06/2017
DATE: July 6, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08577
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Shane C. Brengle, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
10, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). 
Department Counsel requested a hearing.  On April 21, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of
the evidence, whether the Judge’s application of the mitigating conditions was erroneous, and
whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.  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
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: in 2011 and
2012, Applicant served in the military in a position that required him to travel frequently to the
Philippines for temporary duty (TDY).  He became involved with a woman in that country, their
relationship progressing from casual friendship to one of sexual intimacy.  They engaged in sexual
activity about three times toward the end of his tour of duty and communicated by email every two
or three months after Applicant’s return to the U.S.  Applicant sent the woman about $200 twice a
year until mid-2016, at which time he broke off the relationship.
Applicant did not disclose this relationship to his wife, military superiors, or security officer. 
When completing his 2015 security clearance application (SCA), Applicant did not disclose this
relationship, nor did he disclose the financial support that he provided to her.  He did not disclose
this information because he was embarrassed.  In his answer to the SOR he admitted that he did not
disclose this relationship until he was interviewed by a security investigator.
The Judge’s Analysis
The SOR alleged under Guideline E that Applicant had engaged in an extramarital affair with
the Philippine woman and that he had not disclosed on his SCA the extramarital affair and the
financial support that he had provided her.  The Judge entered adverse findings for each of these
allegations, concluding that Applicant’s misconduct was serious and recent.  He cited to evidence
that Applicant had failed to disclose this information to his son or employer.  In addition, as regards
the falsifications, the Judge cited to prior case law that characterizes false statements made during
a clearance adjudication as  striking at the heart of the clearance process.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence that he contends the Judge did not consider.  For example, he
argues that some aspects of his circumstances were unique and, therefore, unlikely to recur.  He cites
to his history of loyal service to the U.S. and to the embarrassment he felt because of his affair. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  Applicant’s arguments amount to a
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is 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. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017).  Moreover, the Judge’s whole person analysis
complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that the Judge considered the totality of the
evidence in reaching his decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016). 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board