KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: At the time the case was submitted for decision Applicant still had delinquent debts. 
The Judge could reasonably conclude Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. 
Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 06-23607.a1
DATE: 04/16/2008
DATE: April 16, 2008
In Re:
--------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23606
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 2, 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 that the case be decided upon the written record.  On January 16, 2008, after considering
the record, Administrative Judge Kathryn M. Braeman 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 security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
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 he contends shows that he has
made sufficient progress in settling his outstanding debts to justify the granting of a security
clearance.  The Board does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive.
Applicant requested that his case be decided upon the written record.  He filed a four-page
response to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM) which indicated that he had paid off
the debts listed in SOR paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c).  The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to those
two debts.  On appeal, Applicant presented new evidence which indicates that he is working with
a law firm to settle his remaining debts and has allocated $4,500 for that purpose.  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 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 the case was submitted for decision, 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 limited 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 some of the SOR allegations.  However, the Judge
reasonably explained why the evidence which 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
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep.
3
4, 2007).  Given the record that was before her, 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan   
Michael Y. Ra’anan 
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple       
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board