KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence unless he specifically states
otherwise.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 07-00553.a1
DATE: 05/23/2008
DATE: May 23, 2008
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00553
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 3, 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
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On February 14, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
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 adverse clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
erred as to some of his findings and did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence
which he contends showed that he had acted responsibly in dealing with his financial situation.  As
part of his argument, Applicant also contends that the Judge’s findings could have given a fuller
explanation of his financial circumstances.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge
erred. 
The Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he specifically
states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-08623 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 29, 2005).  He is not
required to cite or discuss every piece of record evidence.  See, e.g, ISCR Case No. 04-01961 at 2
(App. Bd. Jul. 12, 2007).  Some of the alleged errors are differences of interpretation or
characterization.  The remaining ones are harmless in that they would not be likely to change the
outcome of the case.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material
findings of security concern are supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support such a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”
Directive ¶  E3.1.32.1.  See also Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21
(1966).
 
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 history of not meeting financial
obligations.  At the time of the hearing, Applicant had substantial delinquent debts that he was in the
process of disputing or otherwise trying to resolve.  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 conditions and factors.  He reasonably explained why the evidence which the
Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s security
concerns.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable record evidence cited by
3
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).  After reviewing the record,
the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory
explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962).
Therefore, 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