KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The challenged findings are based on substantial record evidence.  The favorable
evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious or contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 05-02471.a1
DATE: 04/11/2007
DATE: April 11, 2007
In Re:
--------
SSN: -------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-02471
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 November 9, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On August 8, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Barry M. Sax
2
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that
the security concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did
not give sufficient weight to Applicant mitigating evidence which he contends demonstrates that his
financial problems were due to circumstances beyond his control, and that he has now received
financial counseling and established a repayment plan for his debts.  Applicant also argues that the
Judge erred with respect to one of his findings and there are internal inconsistencies with respect to
several others.  The Board does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. 
We have considered the challenged findings in light of the record and conclude that they are
based on substantial evidence.  To the extent that there is error in the Judge’s findings we conclude
that it is harmless.  Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge’s material
findings with respect to his conduct of security concern do not reflect a reasonable or plausible
interpretation of the record evidence.  Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s
material findings of security concern are sustainable. 
Likewise, Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in
concluding that the financial considerations allegations had not been mitigated.  Although Applicant
strongly disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions, he has not established that those conclusions are
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3.
In this case, the Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had a lengthy history of not
meeting financial obligations, that Applicant had previously had indebtedness discharged in
bankruptcy, and that Applicant had only established his current repayment plan subsequent to the
hearing.   In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that the security concerns
raised by Applicant’s financial problems had not been mitigated.  See, e.g.,  ISCR Case No. 04-
09248 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 17, 2007); ISCR Case No. 03-13768 at 4 (App. Bd. June 16, 2005).  
The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn simply on a finding
that one or more of them applies to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application requires
the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole.  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.
The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and
seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant
mitigating conditions.  He articulated a rational basis for not applying any mitigating conditions in
3
this case, and reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented in
mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns.  The Board does not
review a case de novo.  The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to
demonstrate the Administrative Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. June 29, 2005).  Given the record that was before him,
the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance decision under Guidelines F is sustainable.  Thus, the
Judge did not err in denying Applicant a clearance.
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