KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s adverse conclusions follow reasonably from hid findings of fact.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-23179.a1
DATE: 03/21/2008
DATE: March 21, 2008
In Re:
-------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23179
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 July 20, 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 November 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E.
Malone 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’s mitigating evidence which showed that: (a) Applicant’s
indebtedness had resulted from circumstances beyond her control, the loss of employment, and (b)
she had paid off some of her outstanding debts and has sought the assistance of a credit restoration
agency in order to clear up the remaining ones.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the
Judge erred. 
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.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a serious history of not meeting financial
obligations.  At the time of the hearing, Applicant still had significant 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 found in favor
of Applicant with respect to a number of the SOR allegations.  However, the Judge reasonably
explained why the mitigating evidence 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. 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 Guideline F is
sustainable.
3
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: William S. Fields      
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board