KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: At the time of the hearing Applicant had a significant outstanding debt in the form of
an unresolved judgment.  The Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial
problems were ongoing.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-10312.a1
DATE: 07/15/2008
DATE: July 15, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-10312
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 26, 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 April 30, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman
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 contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because it “. . . is
based on inconsistent leveraging of the facts/mitigating circumstances in [t]estimony and the factual
time lines and sequence of events.”  In support of his contention, Applicant summarizes the evidence
he presented at the hearing, and argues that it is sufficient to support a favorable decision under the
whole-person concept.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge erred. 
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 a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same 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, including the failure to file federal income tax returns for three years.  At the time of the
hearing, Applicant still had a significant outstanding debt, in the form of an unresolved judgment
for rent, for which he was unable to provide proof of satisfaction.  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 found in favor of Applicant as to some
of the SOR allegations.  However, he reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was
insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns.  The Board does not review a case de
novo.  The favorable 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
3
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 whole-person analysis and
his ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline F are 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