KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: An applicant with good or exemplary job performance may still engage in conduct
with negative security implications.  A whole-person analysis is not confined to the workplace. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-08326.a1
DATE: 05/28/2008
DATE: May 28, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-08326
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 October 10, 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 February 28, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry
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.  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 excellent employment record, and the fact that he had been
a dependable, trustworthy employee who had always followed the applicable security rules.
Applicant’s argument does 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 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 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 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 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.
3
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).  Accordingly, 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: Jeffrey D. Billett         
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board