KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline B
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy and serious history of not meeting
financial obligations.  Applicant still owed significant amounts on delinquent debts.  Thus the
Judge could reasonably conclude Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-07266.a1
DATE: 06/27/2008
DATE: June 27, 2008
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-07266
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 September 28, 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 B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 11, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge David M. White 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 under Guidelines F and B is sustainable.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline F should be reversed
because the Judge did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence which showed
that as to his four delinquent debts, he had paid off one, made small payments on two others, and
was still negotiating as to the other.  Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision under
Guideline B should be reversed because his Nigerian family members do not make him vulnerable
to coercion, exploitation, or pressure. 
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).
As to the Guideline F allegations, 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 his delinquent debts.  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.  He found in Applicant’s favor as to one
of the SOR allegations.  However, he reasonably explained why the evidence which Applicant had
presented in mitigation was insufficient 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 him, the
Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable.
3
Because the Judge’s adverse clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable, the Board
need not address the issues raised by Applicant under Guideline B.
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