ISCR Case No. 02-06928

ons about his personal life does not preclude the federal government from deciding whether the choices Applicant makes raise security concerns. Applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the record evidence, standing alone, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed it improperly. Given the record evidence in this case, the Judge articulated a rational basis for why he had unresolved doubts abou

personal life. However, Applicant's freedom to make decisi

03.</P>

<P>Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable decision. The Board has jurisdiction under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense

Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.</P>

<P>The following issue has been raised on appeal: whether the Administrative Judge's adverse conclusions under Guideline C are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary

to law. For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.</P>

<P><CENTER><STRONG>Scope of Review</STRONG></CENTER>

</P>

<P>On appeal, the Board does not review a case <EM>de novo</EM>. Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the parties to determine whether there is factual

or legal error. There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the Administrative

Judge committed factual or legal error. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. <EM>See also</EM> ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3

(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specificity).</P>

<P>When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenged, the Board must consider whether they: (1) are arbitrary or capricious; or (2)

contrary to law. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious,

the Board will review the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its

conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of

judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so

implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. <EM>See, e.g.</EM>,<EM> </ EM>ISCR Case No. 97-0435 (July 14, 1998) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court

decision). In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law, the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of

Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other applicable federal law. Compliance with state or local law is not required because security clearance

adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense pursuant to federal law. <EM>See</EM> U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). <EM>See, e.g.</EM>,

ISCR Case No. 00-0423 (June 8, 2001) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court decisions).</P>

<P>When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Board must determine whether "[t]he Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported

by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record. In

making this review, the Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge." Directive, Addi

ksetic </SPAN></P>

<P>Emilio Jaksetic</P>

<P>Administrative Judge</P>

<P>Chairman, Appeal Board</P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">Signed: