KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found Applicant had a history of not meeting his financial obligations and
still had five delinquent debts, The Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide
whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable or vice versa.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 06-11721.a1
DATE: 02/15/2008
DATE: February 15, 2008
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-11721
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 23, 2007, 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 October 9, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman
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’s unfavorable clearance
decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant contends that the Judge should have concluded that the security concerns raised
by his multiple unpaid debts had been mitigated.  In support of that contention, Applicant argues that
his financial problems were the result of circumstances beyond his control, loss of employment and
a divorce, and that he is disputing one of the debts.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that
the Judge erred.
The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn simply on a finding
that one or more of them apply 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. 06-
09462 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jul.19, 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. 05-03452 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 3,
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, is not sufficient to demonstrate that 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. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007).
 
Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in concluding that
the security concerns raised by Applicant’s unpaid debts 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 found that Applicant had a history of not meeting financial obligations
which extended over many years.  At the time the case was submitted for decision, he still had five
delinquent debts totaling approximately $10,000, and was still in the process of trying to resolve his
financial problems.  In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s
financial problems were still ongoing and presented a security concern.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
06-00799 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 16, 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.  He reasonably
explained why the evidence which 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., ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. Jun.
3
29, 2005).  Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance
decision under Guideline F is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett  
Jeffrey D. Billett
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