ISCR Case No. 03-12929

ial issues raised on appeal,

the Board need not review the Administrative Judge's unchallenged findings of fact. Given the Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial difficulties, the Judge had a rational basis for concluding that Applicant's financial history raised security concerns. Under the Directive, Applicant had the burden of presenting evidence to refute, extenuate, or mitigate security concerns raised by her history of financia

ith

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 are: (1) 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>, 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, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. The Board must consider not only whether there is

record evidence supporting a Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence

supporting those findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence as a whole. Although a

Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, the party challenging a Judge's credibility determination has a heavy burden on

appeal.</P>

<P>When an appeal issue raises a question of law, the Board's scope of review is plenary. <EM>See</

r burden of

demonstrating error below. Applicant has not made any persuasive argument that the Judge's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or

contrary to law.</P>

<P><CENTER><STRONG>Conclusion</STRONG></CENTER>

</P>