Skyview Excavating and Grading, Inc., No. MSB-590 (October 27, 1997)
Docket No. MSBE-97-4-4-6
                                                                                                                                                                                MSB-590
                                
                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                  SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
                 OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.
                                
_________________________________
                                 )
IN THE MATTER OF:                )   Docket No. MSBE-97-4-4-6
                                 )
Skyview Excavating and Grading,  )   Decided:  October 27, 1997
Inc.                             )
________________________________ )


                           APPEARANCES
                                
Kent  C.  Dugmore, Esq., Parsons Behle & Latimer, for  Petitioner
Skyview Excavating and Grading, Inc.

Sandra L. Park, Esq., John T. Spotila, Esq., for Respondent Small
Business Administration.


                             DIGEST
                                
To  be  accepted  into  the 8(a) program on  a  claim  of  social
disadvantage based upon gender discrimination, the applicant must
demonstrate  the  individual  personally  suffered  chronic   and
substantial  gender  discrimination, and show  that  this  social
disadvantage had a negative impact on the individual's entry into
and/or advancement in the business world. This nexus may be shown
by  any  relevant evidence, but the SBA particularly  emphasizes,
when   relevant,   evidence  of  discrimination   in   education,
employment, and business history.  The applicant need  not  prove
all of these emphasized criteria.

While  evidence that gender discrimination exists in a particular
industry  is relevant to lend credibility to the claim of  social
disadvantage based upon gender discrimination, this evidence,  by
itself,   does   not  establish  that  a  particular   individual
personally suffered social disadvantage.

If  there is more than one reason for denying an 8(a) application
and  at  least one is proper, the SBA's denial is not  arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.


                         FINAL DECISION

ARKOW, Administrative Law Judge:

      Petitioner  Skyview Excavating and Grading, Inc.  (Skyview)
appeals   a   decision   by   the   Respondent   Small   Business
Administration (SBA) denying it entry into the 8(a) program.  [1]
The SBA found Skyview ineligible for the 8(a) program because the
individual  upon  whom  eligibility is based,  Ms.  Ann  Wardell,
President  of Skyview, is not socially disadvantaged  based  upon
gender  discrimination,  [2]  and because  Ms.  Wardell's  spouse
received  greater compensation from Skyview than did Ms. Wardell.
[3]  Skyview  claims the SBA's decision is arbitrary, capricious,
and contrary to law.  I disagree.

                          Jurisdiction

      Jurisdiction  to decide this appeal is proper.   15  U.S.C.
Section  637(a)(9); 13 C.F.R. parts 124 and 134.  The  appeal  is
timely.  13 C.F.R. Sections 124.210(b), and 134.202(a).

                              Issue

      Whether  the decision of the SBA denying Skyview Excavating
and  Grading,  Inc.  entry into the 8(a)  program  is  arbitrary,
capricious,  or contrary to law.  15 U.S.C. Section 637(a)(9)(C),
13 C.F.R. Section 124.210(h)(1).

                            Facts [4]

      Skyview, a construction company, applied for admission into
the  8(a)  program  on  February 23, 1996.   The  basis  for  the
application  is  that  Ms. Ann Wardell,  who  owns  and  controls
Skyview, is a socially and economically disadvantaged individual.
Skyview  claimed  that  Ms.  Wardell  is  socially  disadvantaged
because of gender discrimination.  The SBA denied the application
on July 30, 1996.

      On  September  5,  1996,  Skyview requested  that  the  SBA
reconsider  its  denial  and presented evidence  to  support  the
request.   The SBA denied the reconsideration request on February
19, 1997.  The reasons for the denial were:

     You  did not present clear and convincing evidence that
     you  are  socially disadvantaged within the  guidelines
     established  by SBA.  You were previously advised  that
     it  must  be demonstrated that discrimination  suffered
     was  chronic  and substantial.  You provided  only  one
     example  of discrimination by a bank over a  five  year
     period.   You further explained that working  with  one
     specific  loan  officer, you obtained lines  of  credit
     from   that   same   bank.    Your   one   example   of
     discrimination   was  associated  with   the   start-up
     financing  of  your concern (that is,  the  first  five
     years   of   the  thirteen  years  of  your   company's
     existence).  This is not uncommon to Small Business  in
     general.   As such, it was determined that chronic  and
     substantial discrimination were not demonstrated.
     
     You  have  not  provided  evidence  that  you,  as  the
     President  of  the  firm, are the  highest  compensated
     employee  or  that  taking  a  lower  salary   than   a
     nondisadvantaged individual is in the best interest  of
     the  applicant concern or you personally.   You  stated
     that  you have elected to pay your key people what they
     are  worth.   The  individual who  is  cited  as  being
     compensated  at a higher rate than you is your  spouse,
     Mr.  Jeff Wardell.  Since both of your incomes are part
     of  the  same  household,  the  rationale  of  how  Mr.
     Wardell's higher salary benefits to you or your concern
     is not apparent.

Administrative  Record  (AR) at Ex.  1.   Skyview  appealed  that
denial on April 4, 1997.

      The  Wardells' personal tax returns and W-2  Forms  reflect
that, in 1994,  Ms. Wardell received $28,000 in compensation from
Skyview, and Mr. Wardell received $33,600.  In 1993, Ms.  Wardell
received $5,000 and Mr. Wardell $51,400.  AR at Ex. 18.

      Skyview  presented its evidence to establish Ms.  Wardell's
social  disadvantage  in a narrative statement  accompanying  its
8(a) application and in its request for reconsideration.  See  AR
at  Ex.  18  and  Ex. 6.  The only other evidence supporting  the
claim  of  social disadvantage is an undated letter  from  a  Ms.
Terrilyn B. Morgan.  This letter states, in pertinent part:

     As the commercial lender assigned to Skyview Excavation
     and Grading, Inc. from January 1990 to December 1994, I
     encountered repeated resistance in obtaining  approvals
     for  credit  requests  for  the  company.   Although  I
     emphatically believe that my employer, West  One  Bank,
     Utah,  fully subscribed to a non-discriminatory lending
     posture,  a  bias  against  a women-owned  construction
     business  did exist.  I worked diligently to  give  the
     company   a  chance  to  prove  its  worth.   In   each
     evaluation  of the company for a new credit request,  I
     needed to provide substantial information on [Mr.] Jeff
     Wardell  as the experience behind the company, although
     [Ms.] Ann Wardell was the owner of the company and  was
     fully  capable of handling the business on her own.   I
     believe  that despite the efforts of women  to  "prove"
     their  worth, there are facets of both the banking  and
     construction  industry that are just not  ready  and/or
     willing  to  accept  women  as  equal  players  in  the
     business game.

AR at Ex. 6.

                     Position of the Parties
     
     Skyview  argues  two points in its Appeal Petition.   First,
Skyview contends Ms. Wardell is socially disadvantaged because of
chronic   gender  discrimination.   It  argues   that   the   SBA
misinterpreted Ms. Wardell's use of the words "everyday event" to
mean  something other than "chronic," and that, with  respect  to
the various alleged incidents of sexual harassment, filthy jokes,
and  "being  talked down to," the SBA's conclusion is  incorrect.
Skyview  emphasizes, "[I]n our society male counterparts who  are
running  construction companies don't have to put  up  with  this
kind  of  behavior,  and  I shouldn't have  to  either!"   Appeal
Petition at 2 (emphasis in original omitted).
     
     Skyview  also  cites,  for  the first  time  in  its  Appeal
Petition,  incidents  of alleged gender discrimination  involving
the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and    private   contractors   to   establish   chronic    gender
discrimination,   and  attaches  to  its  Appeal   Petition   its
attorney's  affidavit regarding the Department  of  the  Interior
incidents.  Appeal Petition at 2-4. [5]
     
     Second,  Skyview contends that at times all of its employees
received a "higher wage" than Ms. Wardell, because of the  Davis-
Bacon  wage requirements on federal contracts.  In order  to  pay
Davis-Bacon   wages   and   still  be  competitive   with   other
construction  firms, Ms. Wardell has to accept less  compensation
than  others  in the firm.  Further, Ms. Wardell's  lower  salary
helps  Skyview  to  grow and prosper.  Appeal  Petition  at  5-6.
Accordingly,  the SBA's denial of Skyview's 8(a) application  was
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. [6]

     The SBA contends that its conclusion that Skyview failed  to
demonstrate   by  clear  and  convincing  evidence   the   social
disadvantage of its owner, Ms. Wardell, was reasonable.  The  SBA
also  contends  that Skyview did not adequately explain  why  Mr.
Wardell's  higher compensation was in the best  interest  of  the
firm.  Accordingly, its denial of Skyview's 8(a) application  was
not arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

                           Discussion

                               I

     To be accepted into the 8(a) program, Skyview must establish
that  Ms.  Wardell, who owns, controls, and manages  Skyview,  is
socially    and    economically   disadvantaged.     13    C.F.R.
Sections  124.103-124.106.   "Socially disadvantaged  individuals
are  those  who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice
or cultural bias because of their identities as members of groups
without  regard  to  their  individual  qualities."   13   C.F.R.
Section  124.105(a).   Because  Ms.  Wardell's  claim  of  social
disadvantage  is based upon her gender, Skyview must  demonstrate
that  Ms.  Wardell  personally suffered gender discrimination  in
American society, rather than merely establish that women,  as  a
group,  could  be  considered socially disadvantaged  because  of
their gender.  13 C.F.R. Section 124.105(c)(1)(i)-(ii).  Further,
Skyview  must  establish  that  the  gender  discrimination   she
suffered   was   "chronic  and  substantial,  not   fleeting   or
insignificant."  13 C.F.R. Section 124.105(c)(1)(iv).

      In  addition  to  proving chronic  and  substantial  gender
discrimination, Skyview must show that this gender discrimination
had  a  negative  impact  on  Ms.  Wardell's  entry  into  and/or
advancement   in   the  business  world.    13   C.F.R.   Section
124.105(c)(l)(v).   This  nexus may  be  shown  by  any  relevant
evidence,  but  the SBA particularly emphasizes,  when  relevant,
evidence of discrimination in education, employment, and business
history.  Id.

      The  8(a)  applicant need not prove all of these emphasized
criteria.  Matter of Sierra Environmental Services, SBA  No.  550
at 10 (1996); Matter of Informed Decision Services, Inc., SBA No.
518   at   7   (1995).   But  without  proof  that   the   gender
discrimination  was  personal  to  Ms.  Wardell,  was  rooted  in
treatment  she experienced in American society, was  chronic  and
substantial, and had a negative impact on her entry  into  and/or
advancement  in  the business world, Skyview cannot  be  admitted
into the 8(a) program.

       Skyview  bears  the  burden  of  establishing  the  social
disadvantage of Ms. Wardell by clear and convincing evidence.  13
C.F.R.  Section 124.105(c)(1).  Clear and convincing evidence  is
an   evidentiary  standard  that  is  more  stringent  than   the
preponderance of evidence standard and less stringent than  proof
beyond a reasonable doubt.  This characterization, however,  does
not define it.  A generally accepted definition is evidence which
produces, in the mind of the trier of fact, an abiding conviction
that  the  truth  of the factual contentions is highly  probable.
Colorado  v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984).  It  does  not
mean  evidence which unequivocally proves a point or dispels  all
reasonable  doubt.   Yet it is greater than  a  preponderance  of
evidence,  which requires proof that the existence of a  fact  is
more   probable   than  its  nonexistence.   United   States   v.
Mastrangelo, 561 F. Supp. 1114, 1120 (E.D.N.Y. 1983).

                               II

      Skyview  has  failed  to  meet its  evidentiary  burden  of
establishing   that   Ms.  Wardell  is  socially   disadvantaged.
Although  Skyview presents some evidence in the area of  business
history  to  support  its  claim of gender  discrimination,  this
evidence  falls short of the requirement for clear and convincing
evidence.   The deficiency, for the most part, appears to  result
from  a  qualitative  and  quantitative  failure  of  proof,  not
necessarily  a conclusion that Ms. Wardell did not suffer  gender
discrimination that may have affected her success in the business
world. [7]

      Skyview  alleges  widespread gender discrimination  against
women  in the construction industry in support of its claim  that
Ms. Wardell is socially disadvantaged.  While evidence to support
such allegations is relevant to lend credibility to the claim  of
social  disadvantage  based upon gender  discrimination,  Skyview
must  establish  that  Ms.  Wardell "personally  suffered  social
disadvantage,  not  merely claim membership in  a  non-designated
group  which  could  be considered socially  disadvantaged."   13
C.F.R. Section 124.105(c)(1)(ii).  Thus, establishing that  women
in   general   are  discriminated  against  in  the  construction
industry,  by  itself, does not establish  that  Ms.  Wardell  is
socially disadvantaged.

                                A

      Skyview alleges that, because of gender discrimination,  it
was  denied surety bonding by Eubank Insurance, Gaskill Insurance
Brokers, and Blackburn-Jones Insurance; that it was denied credit
by  Barnes  Bank and the Bank of Utah; and that it was  denied  a
letter of credit by the First National Bank of Morgan.  AR at Ex.
18.  These allegations do not establish gender discrimination  by
clear   and  convincing  evidence.   First,  they  all  allegedly
occurred  in 1984, during Skyview's first year in business,  when
it  did  not  yet have a business credit record, and eight  years
before  it applied to the 8(a) program.  Second, other  than  Ms.
Wardell's statement, there is no corroborating evidence of  these
denials  of  credit,  much  less the reason  for  these  denials.
Accordingly, the SBA's conclusion, that these denials  of  credit
in  Skyview's early years are typical of a new business and  that
Skyview   failed  to  establish  they  were  caused   by   gender
discrimination, is reasonable.

      Skyview  presents a number of other allegations  of  gender
discrimination  that  are not supported by clear  and  convincing
evidence.  For example, Ms. Wardell claims that she has been  the
butt of numerous jokes and sexual innuendo; that she is not taken
seriously  because she is a woman;  that salesmen,  upon  hearing
her  voice  on  the  telephone, ask for  the  man  who  runs  the
business;  and that male-owned construction companies have  built
successful businesses in far less time than Skyview.  AR at Ex. 6
and  Ex. 18.  These allegations do not contain sufficient  detail
and  are  not corroborated by other evidence to prove  that  they
amount to gender discrimination that had a negative impact on Ms.
Wardell's  entry  into and/or advancement in the business  world.
See 13 C.F.R. Section 124.105(c)(1)(v).

                               B

      The  undated letter from Ms. Terrilyn Morgan quoted, supra,
describes Skyview's attempts to obtain credit from West One  Bank
from  January  1990  to  December 1994.  Ms.  Morgan  stated  she
repeatedly  encountered resistance in obtaining credit  approvals
for  Skyview.   She had to provide substantial information  about
Mr. Wardell even though Ms. Wardell owned Skyview and was capable
of  running it on her own.  However, she emphatically states that
West  One  Bank  fully subscribed to a nondiscriminatory  lending
posture.   Absent  from  the  AR is  any  allegation,  much  less
evidence, that West One Bank denied credit to Skyview or  granted
it credit on less favorable terms because Ms. Wardell is a woman.
On  the  contrary,  the AR reflects that on  February  22,  1996,
Skyview had a line of credit with West One Bank for $30,000,  all
of it unused.  AR at Ex. 22.

     This contradictory evidence regarding Skyview's relationship
with  West  One  Bank  does not meet the "clear  and  convincing"
requirement   needed   to   establish   her   claim   of   gender
discrimination.   However, even if West One Bank's  treatment  of
Skyview  and  Ms.  Wardell did establish  gender  discrimination,
Skyview  has  not  established the required  nexus  between  this
discrimination  and  negative  impact  on  her  entry   into   or
advancement   in   the   business   world.    See    13    C.F.R.
Section 124.105(c)(1)(v).

                                C

      In  addition,  Skyview  does not  establish  by  clear  and
convincing   evidence   that   Ms.   Wardell's   claimed   gender
discrimination  was  "chronic and substantial,  not  fleeting  or
insignificant."  13 C.F.R. Section 124.105(c)(1)(iv).  There  are
no allegations of gender discrimination against Ms. Wardell prior
to  Skyview's  formation  in  1984.  The  allegations  of  gender
discrimination  discussed in sections A and B,  supra,  were  not
established  by  clear  and convincing  evidence  and  cannot  be
considered in deciding whether Skyview has established a  pattern
of  chronic and substantial discrimination.  The evidence in  the
AR  thus  fails to establish a pattern of chronic and substantial
gender discrimination.

      Accordingly, the SBA correctly concluded that  Skyview  has
not  established  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence  that  its
president, Ms. Wardell, is socially disadvantaged. [8]

                              III

      Because the SBA has correctly concluded that Ms. Wardell is
not  socially  disadvantaged, it is unnecessary  to  examine  the
other  ground for the SBA's denial of Skyview's 8(a) application.
It  is  well  settled that if there is more than one  reason  for
denying an 8(a) application and at least one is proper, the SBA's
denial  is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Matter
of  Technical Assistance International, Inc., SBA No.  530  at  5
(1995);  Matter of TAO of Systems Integration, Inc., SBA No.  528
at 6 (1995); Matter of B&H Contracting Company, Inc., SBA No. 460
at 22 (1994).

       Even   so,  the  SBA  also  found  that  Mr.  Wardell,   a
nondisadvantaged  individual, received greater compensation  from
Skyview   than  did  Ms.  Wardell,  and  that  Skyview  did   not
demonstrate that such a compensation arrangement was "in the best
interest  of  the  applicant."  AR at  Ex.  1.   SBA  regulations
prohibit  non-disadvantaged individuals who  are  employees  from
receiving  excessive  compensation from an  applicant  firm.   13
C.F.R. Section 124.104(c)(3). [9]

      There  is  no  dispute  that Mr. Wardell  received  greater
compensation  from Skyview than did Ms. Wardell.  AR  at  Ex.  18
(IRS  Forms W-2 for 1993 and 1994).  What is disputed is  whether
Mr.   Wardell's  compensation  is  justified  under  current  SBA
regulations   or   whether   that   compensation   violates   the
compensation restriction on nondisadvantaged individuals.  See 13
C.F.R.  Section  124.104(c)(3).   The  SBA  concluded  that   the
excessive compensation was not justified.  This conclusion cannot
be  overturned  unless it is arbitrary or capricious.   Technical
Assistance, SBA No. 530 at 7.

     It  may be appropriate for a nondisadvantaged individual  to
receive greater compensation than the firm's president, where the
nondisadvantaged individual has a "special talent" or  skill  the
marketplace values very highly, and the firm needs this talent or
skill  in  its  operation.   Certain physicians,  scientists,  or
engineers   might  fall  into  this  category.    See   Technical
Assistance,  SBA  No.  530  at  7;  Matter  of  Applied   Quality
Communications, Inc., SBA No. 433 at 14  (1993).

     Skyview  asserts that it pays its key employees "what  they
are  worth" and that Ms. Wardell has put her money back into  the
company  to make it stronger.  AR at Ex. 6 and Ex. 14.   However,
Skyview presents no supporting evidence for this assertion.  Such
factual  evidence  might include a statement of what  specialized
talent or skill Mr. Wardell possesses, the hourly or weekly  rate
at  which  the marketplace values that talent or skill,  and  the
amount of time Mr. Wardell spends in performing for Skyview tasks
requiring that talent or skill.

      Moreover,  the record reflects that Mr. Wardell,  Skyview's
Project  Manager-Superintendent, who  is  well-respected  in  the
construction   community,  and  whose  responsibilities   include
estimating,  job  costing,  and  operations  management,   is   a
management  employee.   He has been in the construction  business
since 1974, and joined Skyview when it was formed.  AR at Ex. 17,
pp. 107-08.  The AR also reflects that only recently, on April 1,
1996,  did  Ms.  Wardell replace her husband as  the  "qualifying
management person" on Skyview's Utah contractor's license.  AR at
Ex. 17, pp. 115-17.

      This  evidence  supports the reasonableness  of  the  SBA's
conclusion that Mr. Wardell's compensation is excessive,  because
this  compensation  brings  into  question  the  extent  of   Mr.
Wardell's  participation  in Skyview's management.   Accordingly,
the SBA's conclusion is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law, and cannot be overturned.

                               IV

      The  SBA's  denial  of Skyview's 8(a) application  must  be
sustained  unless  a review of the written administrative  record
demonstrates the SBA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary
to  law  in concluding Ms. Wardell is not socially disadvantaged.
13  C.F.R.  Section 124.210(h)(1).  Such a review is  narrow  and
does not permit me to substitute my own judgment for that of  the
SBA.   My review must examine whether the SBA considered  all  of
the facts presented and correctly applied the applicable laws and
regulations to those facts in deciding whether or not to  approve
Skyview's  8(a) application.  Then, I must determine whether  the
SBA  made  a  clear  error of judgment in reaching  its  decision
before  I  can  find the SBA acted arbitrarily, capriciously,  or
contrary  to  law.  See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.  State  Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

     A clear error of judgment can be found if the SBA:  fails to
properly apply the law and regulations to the facts of the  case;
fails  to consider an important aspect of the problem; offers  an
explanation  for  its  determination that runs  contrary  to  the
evidence;  or  provides an implausible explanation that  is  more
than a difference between my views and those of the SBA.  In sum,
the  SBA  must  articulate  a satisfactory  explanation  for  its
action,  including a rational connection between the facts  found
and its determination.  See id.

      After a careful review of the entire written administrative
record,  I find the SBA considered all the evidence presented  by
Skyview and correctly applied the laws and regulations applicable
to   these   proceedings  to  that  evidence  prior  to   denying
eligibility.  The SBA acted reasonably in concluding that Skyview
did  not establish Ms. Wardell's social disadvantage by clear and
convincing     evidence    as    required    by     13     C.F.R.
Section  124.105(c)(1).   Further, the SBA  acted  reasonably  in
concluding  that  Skyview  did  not  establish  that  its  higher
compensation of Mr. Wardell was in the best interest of the firm.
Thus, the SBA had a rational basis for reaching its decision that
Skyview did not establish its eligibility for admission into  the
8(a)   program.   Accordingly,  the  SBA's  decision  cannot   be
considered arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

                          Conclusions

      Respondent  Small  Business Administration's  determination
denying 8(a) program entry to Petitioner, Skyview Excavating  and
Grading, Inc. is NOT ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR CONTRARY  TO  LAW.
See   15   U.S.C.   Section  637(a)(9)(C);  13   C.F.R.   Section
124.210(h)(1).

       This   is   the  final  decision  of  the  Small  Business
Administration  and is binding upon all parties, including  those
within the employ of the Agency.  15 U.S.C. Section 637(a)(9)(D);
13 C.F.R. Section 124.210(i).

                              
                              
                              ______________________________
                              RICHARD S. ARKOW
                              Administrative Law Judge




_________________________

       [1]  Small Business Act of 1958, Section 8(a), as amended,
15  U.S.C.  Section 637(a); 13 C.F.R. part 124.  The  purpose  of
section  8(a)  is to "promote the business development  of  small
business   concerns  owned  and  controlled   by   socially   and
economically disadvantaged individuals so that such concerns  can
compete  on an equal basis in the American economy."   15  U.S.C.
Section 631(f)(2)(A).
      [2] See 13 C.F.R. Section 124.105(c)(1)(i).
      [3] See 13 C.F.R. Section 124.104(c)(3).
      [4]  Additional  facts pertinent to Skyview's  claims  are
found in the Discussion.
      [5] This appeal must be decided "solely on a review of the
written administrative record."  13 C.F.R. Section 124.210(h)(1).
Accordingly, I am unable to consider this new evidence. Matter of
Pride Technologies, Inc., SBA No. 557 at 6, n.8 (1996).
      [6] The AR contains no evidence supporting this argument.
Accordingly, because my review of the SBA's decision is limited
to the evidence contained in the AR, in the absence of such
evidence, I cannot consider this argument on appeal.
      [7]  In  the area of education, Ms. Wardell makes  only  a
single  generalized assertion:  "In high school, girls  were  not
encouraged [to] pursue careers other than as a homemaker [or]  to
obtain  more  education."  AR at Ex. 6.  However,  she  cites  no
specific incidents as evidence of gender discrimination.
     [8] I have considered Skyview's other allegations of gender
discrimination.   None is meritorious and none  warrants  further
discussion  beyond  concluding that  these  allegations  are  not
established by clear and convincing evidence.  For a similar case
involving numerous generalized allegations of discrimination  and
scant  evidence  to  prove  those  allegations,  see  Matter   of
Interword  Corporation, Ltd., SBA No. 490 (1994).  There  it  was
held  that,  even where it was likely that some of the  allegedly
discriminatory  incidents  could be  proven,  without  clear  and
convincing evidence to support what was asserted to be fact,  the
SBA's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious.
     [9] Mr. Wardell's compensation cannot be "deemed" excessive
by  the SBA because he is not an owner of Skyview.  See 13 C.F.R.
Section 124.104(c)(3); Technical Assistance, SBA No. 530 at 7.

                                           Posted: November, 1997