KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge found Applicant tested positive for illegal drug use while possessing a
security clearance in 2012, intentionally lied about details of an arrest during a background
interview in 2011, and falsified responses to questions in two SCAs in 2011. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08246.a1
DATE: 11/16/2017
DATE: November 16, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08246
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
November 16, 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).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 29, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline B are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge found against Applicant on allegations that he tested positive for illegal drug use
while possessing a security clearance in 2012; that he intentionally lied about details of an arrest
during a background interview in 2011; that he falsified responses to four questions in a security
clearance application (SCA) in 2013; and that he falsified responses to questions in two SCAs in
2011.  Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact.  Instead, he claims the Judge
erred in her mitigation and whole-person analysis. 
In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that his misconduct occurred four to six years ago 
when he was 21 years old or younger and that he fully disclosed all pertinent information in a more
recent SCA.   He also argues some of his misconduct occurred under unique circumstances that are
unlikely to recur.  The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to
make a favorable security clearance decision.  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. 16-00276 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2017).  In this regard, we note
the Judge discussed Applicant’s more recent SCA submission in her mitigation analysis and
concluded that “Applicant’s admissions and disclosures do not fully mitigate his past conduct to
include deliberate falsifications.”  Decision at 12.
Applicant also contends that the Judge erred in failing to examine mitigating condition 17(g)
because he no longer associated with the individual who provided him a cigarette that was laced
with an unknown drug (Appeal Brief at 7-8) and the Judge erred in failing to address various whole-
person factors.  A Judge is not required to discuss all the analytical factors that could potentially
apply in a case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06135 at 2, n. 1 (App. Bd. Jun. 15, 2016).   In this case,
the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision.  We find no error in her
mitigation and whole-person analysis.  
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, Encl. 2, App A. ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                 
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board