KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A whole-person analysis is not confined to the workplace.  The Judge found Applicant
has a lengthy and serious history of not meeting financial obligations.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 07-03232.a1
DATE: 03/24/2008
DATE: March 24, 2008
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-03232
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 July 26, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
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 December 3, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan
Metz, Jr., 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, a divorce; (b) she had paid off,
been making payments on, or been otherwise disputing her outstanding debts; and (c) her military
service record had been excellent, and she had never been reprimanded for wrongdoing.  Applicant’s
arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 
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). 
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 lengthy and 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).  Furthermore, the Judge’s challenged findings are
sustainable.
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
3
mitigating conditions and whole-person factors.  The Judge considered the evidence which Applicant
referenced in her appeal brief and reasonably explained why that evidence 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 Guideline F is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin   
Jean E. Smallin
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