KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not consider new evidence on appeal.  At the hearing Applicant still
had delinquent debts.  The Judge could reasonably conclude Applicant’s financial problems were
ongoing.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-01659.a1
DATE: 02/22/2008
DATE: February 22, 2008
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01659
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 May 25, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.b and 1.f.  Those favorable
1
findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
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 18, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Jacqueline T.
Williams 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 his control—a divorce and serious medical
problems, and (b) Applicant has been in the process of consolidating his debts and filing for a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  In support of his argument, Applicant provides documentation updating his
financial situation, and attesting to his good character and work performance.  Part of this submission
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, his 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).
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. 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 his 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 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
3
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep.
4, 2007).  Given the record that was before her, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance
decision under Guidelines 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