FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Its submission does not
demonstrate error on the part of the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed 
CASENO: 06-11172.a1
DATE: 09/04/2007
DATE: September 4, 2007
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-11172
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 June 29, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.d through 1.g.  Those favorable
1
findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested that the case be decided upon the written record.  On March 15, 2007, after considering
the record, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider 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.1
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did
not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence which showed that: (a) Applicant’s
indebtedness had resulted from circumstances beyond her control—a prolonged period of
unemployment; (b) Applicant had been making payments on some of her outstanding debts; (c) she
had excellent performance reviews from her employer; (d) she had not engaged in any illegal
activity; and (e) Applicant’s debts could not be used against her.  In support of her argument,
Applicant provides an updated version of her response to the government’s file of relevant material,
which provides additional explanations about her financial situation, including her efforts to resolve
some of her debts subsequent to the close of the record in this case.  Much of Applicant’s submission
in this regard relates to debts cited in SOR paragraphs which were resolved in Applicant’s favor and
are not at issue on appeal.  With respect to the balance of Applicant’s submission, her arguments do
not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 
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 Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-
00799 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 16, 2007).
The federal government need not wait until an applicant actually mishandles or fails to
properly handle classified information before it can deny or revoke access to such information. See
Adams v. Laird, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1039 (1970). An
applicant with good or exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative security
implications. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0123 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 11, 2000).  The Directive's
Guidelines set forth a variety of examples of off-duty conduct and circumstances which are of
security concern to the government and mandate a whole-person analysis to determine an applicant's
security eligibility.  A whole-person analysis is not confined to the workplace. See ISCR Case No.
03-11231 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2004). 
“[T]here is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance.” Dorfmont v. Brown,
913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  Once the governmentth
presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.
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
3
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 found that Applicant had a lengthy and serious history of not meeting
financial obligations.  At the time of the hearing, Applicant still had delinquent debts and was still
in the process of resolving her financial problems.  In light of the foregoing, the Judge could
reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing.   See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007).  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 and whole person factors.  The Judge reasonably
explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to
overcome all of 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 Judge’s decision
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ADP Case No. 03-14873 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep.
28, 2006).  Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance
decision under Guideline F is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael D. Hipple
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields_
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board