KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  The fact that Applicant held a
security clearance for 34 years without incident was important evidence for the Judge to consider,
particularly when evaluating Applicant’s case under the whole person concept.  A lengthy track
record of complying with security procedures may be a significant factor in mitigation of security
concerns presented by problematic conduct or circumstances.  However, the Judge is presumed
all the evidence in the record.  Furthermore the documents to which Applicant refer are cited in
the Judge’s decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-03120.a1
DATE: 01/30/2008
DATE: January 30, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-03120
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 4, 2007, 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 September 19, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny 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 Guidelines F and E 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’s mitigating evidence which showed that Applicant’s
indebtedness had resulted from circumstance beyond his control (medical problems) and that he had
held a security clearance for 34 years without incident.  Applicant also argues that his financial
problems no longer present a security concern because he obtained a Chapter 7 discharge in
bankruptcy subsequent to the hearing.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge
erred. 
The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Therefore,
the Board may not consider Applicant’s assertions relating to his subsequent discharge in
bankruptcy. That evidence 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 fact that Applicant has held a security clearance for 34 years without incident was
important evidence for the Judge to consider, particularly when evaluating Applicant’s case under
the whole person concept.  A lengthy track record of complying with security procedures may be a
significant factor in mitigation of security concerns presented by problematic conduct or
circumstances.  However, the Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record
unless he specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-08623 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 29,
2005); ISCR Case No. 04-08134 at 3 (App. Bd. May 16, 2005).  The Judge is not required to cite or
discuss every piece of record evidence.  See, e.g, ISCR Case No. 04-01961 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 12,
2007).  The evidence to which Applicant refers is found in Applicant’s Exhibit F and the transcript
of the hearing.  Both of those documents were referenced in the Judge’s Decision—which indicates
that they had been reviewed and considered by the Judge.  See Decision at 2-3.  Therefore, on the
facts of this case, Applicant has not met his burden of rebutting the presumption that the Judge
considered that favorable evidence.
Once the government 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 Case No. 06-23384 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 2007).  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.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007).  An applicant’s disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence,
3
is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner
that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd.
Oct. 12, 2007).
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy and serious history of not meeting
financial obligations and had provided false information about his indebtedness in response to two
different questions on his security clearance application.  At the time of the hearing, Applicant still
owed approximately $49,000 on 31 debts.  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.  The Judge 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 Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  Given the record that was
before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guidelines F and E
is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan   
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields     
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board