KEYWORD: Guideline F,: Guideline E
DIGEST: The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable security clearance decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-06551.a1
DATE: 04/30/2008
DATE: April 30, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-06553
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to Guideline E and SOR allegations 1(b), 1(e), and 1(i).  Those1
favorable findings are not at issue on appeal.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 13, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested the case be decided on the written record.  On January
23, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 failure to mitigate the
Guideline F security concerns is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we
affirm.
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 the outstanding
debts listed in the SOR had been either paid off, successfully disputed, or charged off and were
unenforceable.   Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 1
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.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 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 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. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).
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 owed
significant amounts on debts that had been charged off.  In light of the foregoing, the Judge could
reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing.   See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 06-23894 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 6, 2008).  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.  She gave Applicant partial credit under the relevant
mitigating conditions and found in his favor as to several of the SOR allegations.  However, she
reasonably explained why the evidence which Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient
3
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 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: Jean E. Smallin          
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board