WPCz  g/ a`/\ODnSn6HZZ:_M gsE~nE=,sgvK|tGB1<[u z ڤ!tr"i/>ΐqÜNwJD*/F^c: BeXkR!ݷ)Ao$ I/iK|L;d0oTyԠfݯ~x"'wp01PΤLa*LDCBF6aNb \GpV?сZD u Z'%o_OΆAPTb Es誁c-Q){!/$Gfd-HmaS@.-1O:Uy+= RM4v-o `G>K\OyMp|㺕 O6M^M(,aV.|2-juT2OmS4vtR 4`#@UN %W 0:] ^ w 4   m Z Z= = E 0~ 0D N[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ B] Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,J;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineG;GuidelineJ  DIGEST:Inthiscase,theJudgereasonablyweighedtheavailablemitigatingevidenceagainstthe  lengthandseriousnessofthedisqualifyingconductandconsideredthepossibleapplicationof t relevantconditionsandfactors.ShefoundinfavorofApplicantunderGuidelineGandastoone ` ofthe_SOR_ԀfactualallegationsunderGuidelineJ.However,shereasonablyexplainedwhythe L  mitigatingevidencewasinsufficienttoovercomethegovernmentssecurityconcerns.Adverse 8  decisionaffirmed. $ t _CASENO_:1406532.a1  L  DATE:06/08/2017 $     `     h      p DATE:June8,2017   .؉7r(#(#.A_) xdE[gA \ InRe: W     ApplicantforSecurityClearance C A_) xdEgA  ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4  )  !   " pX p ISCRCaseNo.1406532  p%   \& .؉7r. \XXp &    APPEALBOARDDECISION ' APPEARANCES D!*  &+%XX FORGOVERNMENT  #l, JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel #D-  FORAPPLICANT  % /  Prose #XxX%&+D# |&!0       TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On *)z$3 December2,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(SOR)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat *f%4 decision"securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineG(AlcoholConsumption)andGuidelineJ +R&5 (CriminalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended) +>'6 (Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisionontheadministrativerecord.OnFebruary22,2017, ,*(7 afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppealsAdministrativeJudgeCarol -)8 G._Ricciardello_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealedpursuantto  theDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionis t arbitrary,capriciousorcontrarytolaw. ` _  Applicantrequestedthathiscasebedecidedonthewrittenrecordandthendidnotrespond 8  tothegovernmentsFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM).InhisappealbriefhestatesthattheJudges $ t decisionwas madeinerrorandhastilyandrecitessomeoftheunderlyingfactsinhiscase,  ` implyingthattheJudgedidnotcorrectlyweightheevidence.Healsopresentssomenewevidence,  L  whichtheBoardcannotconsideronappeal.SeeDirectiveE3.1.29.Applicantspresentationdoes  8  notdemonstratethattheJudgesdecisionisarbitrary,capriciousorcontrarytolaw. $  Ѐ       Asthetrieroffact,theJudgehastoweightheevidenceasawholeanddecidewhetherthe   favorableevidenceoutweighstheunfavorableevidence,orviceversa.Apartysdisagreementwith   theJudgesweighingoftheevidence,oranabilitytoargueforadifferentinterpretationofthe   evidence,isnotsufficienttodemonstratetheJudgeweighedtheevidenceorreachedconclusionsin p amannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1502659at2 \ (App.Bd.Apr.28,2017). H   Inthiscase,theJudgereasonablyweighedtheavailablemitigatingevidenceagainstthe  p lengthandseriousnessofthedisqualifyingconductandconsideredthepossibleapplicationof  \ relevantconditionsandfactors.Decisionat47.ShefoundinfavorofApplicantunderGuideline H GandastooneoftheSORfactualallegationsunderGuidelineJ.However,shereasonably 4 explainedwhythemitigatingevidencewasinsufficienttoovercomethegovernmentssecurity   concerns.Id.TheBoarddoesnotreviewacasedenovo.Afterreviewingtherecord,theBoard   concludesthattheJudgeexaminedtherelevantdataandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationfor  thedecision. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistent  withtheinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528  (1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsidered l foraccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.Therefore,the X  Judgesunfavorablesecurityclearancedecisionissustainable. D!  @-(, Ї@( Order  `     ThedecisionoftheJudgeisAFFIRMED. 8     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody $     `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy H    `     h   JamesF.Duffy 4    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  p    `     h   Member,AppealBoard  \    `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields__________________________________________________________________________      `     h   WilliamS.Fields     `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___