KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not
sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge erred.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 05-02619.a1
DATE: 03/21/2007
DATE: March 21, 2007
In Re:
------------
SSN: -----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-02619
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 25, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 26, 2006, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Barry M. Sax denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
2
timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that
the security concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated; and whether the Judge erred
in concluding Applicant’s falsification of his security clearance application was deliberate.
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns raised by
his history of financial difficulties had not been mitigated.  In support of that contention, Applicant
essentially restates the facts of his case and provides new evidence in the form of documents which
indicate that his student loans have now been rehabilitated and are no longer in default.  Applicant
also argues that he did not deliberately falsify his security clearance application by failing to disclose
adverse information about his indebtedness.  Finally, Applicant contends that the Judge miss-
weighed the evidence, by failing to given adequate consideration to the favorable evidence.  In
support of that contention, Applicant  notes that he served over 25 years in the military, has held a
security clearance for over 27 years, and had been attempting to resolve his financial problems well
before the issuance of the SOR in this case.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate error on the
part of the Judge.
The Board may not consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Its submission does not demonstrate error on the part of the Administrative Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 02-12789 at 3 (App. Bd. May 13, 2005). 
The Judge had the opportunity to consider Applicant’s explanation for why he failed to
disclose the information in question on his security clearance application.  The Judge was not bound,
as a matter of law, to accept or reject Applicant’s explanation.  The Judge considered Applicant’s
explanation in light of the record evidence as a whole, and concluded there was a sufficient basis to
find that Applicant’s omission was deliberate and intentional.  On this record, the Judge’s finding
of deliberate falsification is sustainable.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.   
The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole person factors does not
turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 01-14740 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan.15, 2003).  Thus, 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.  An applicant’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.
In this case, the Judge reasonably weighed the mitigating evidence against the seriousness
of the disqualifying conduct, and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating
conditions.  He reasonably explained why there was insufficient mitigating evidence to overcome
the government’s other security concerns.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable
evidence cited by the Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. Jun. 29, 2005).
Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance decision under
Guidelines F and E is sustainable.
3
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin    
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board