KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Given the lack of documentation regarding his finances, Applicant’s claims that he had
paid certain debts cannot be accepted.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-10310.a1
DATE: 07/30/2008
DATE: July 30, 2008
In Re:
-----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-10310
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 November 7, 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 that the case be decided on the written record.  On April 22, 2008, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 did
not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence which he contends showed that he had
paid off most of his outstanding debts by the time the case was submitted for decision.  As part of
his argument, Applicant also contends that the credit reports offered as evidence by the government
were not current and were not indicative of his current financial status.  Applicant’s arguments do
not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 
Applicant elected to have a decision based on the written record.  He filed a short response
to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM), which included a more recent credit report.
Applicant’s response, however, did not object to the credit reports contained in the government’s
FORM, and the Judge specifically considered the more recent credit report submitted by Applicant
in reaching his decision.  Decision at 2-3.  The Judge based his adverse findings, in substantial part,
on the fact that Applicant had submitted no “proof-of-payment” paperwork as to individual debts,
such as account statements or cancelled checks, and “no evidence showing the value of any financial
assets or investments.”  Id. at 3-4.  He then went on to conclude that: “Given the lack of
documentation in this case, [Applicant’s] claims, representations, and estimations cannot be accepted
as facts that a reasonable person might accept as reliable evidence.”  Id. at 6.  The Board has
previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about
the satisfaction of individual debts.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17520 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 20,
2007).
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  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.  Applicant offered little in the way of mitigating evidence and, at the time the case was
3
submitted for decision, he was still in the process of trying to resolve his financial problems.  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
conditions and factors.  He reasonably explained why the evidence which 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 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 3 (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).   “The general standard is
that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national
security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  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 D. Hipple      
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, 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