KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from $19,000 worth of
delinquent debt and from falsifications on her security clearance application.  Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASENO: 07-06205.a1
DATE: 08/07/2008
DATE: August 7, 2008
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-06205
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 October 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 E (Personal Conduct) 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 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 under Guidelines F and E is sustainable.
The Judge found that Applicant had 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,000.  At
the time the case was submitted for decision, she was paying on only one of the debts.  Decision at
1-2.  Additionally, the Judge found that Applicant had deliberately falsified her security clearance
application when in response to the question as to whether she had debts that had been delinquent
more than 90 days and more than 180 days respectively, she answered “no.”  The Judge noted that
in her response to the SOR, Applicant had stated that she was so consumed with shame concerning
her financial situation that she failed to disclose her debts.  Id. at 2-3.
On appeal, Applicant requests that the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline F be
reversed because her financial problems had resulted from a period of underemployment after she
had left the military.  She asks that the adverse decision under Guideline E be reversed based on her
favorable character references and military service.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that
the Judge erred.
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  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 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 factors.  He found in favor of Applicant as to one of the SOR
allegations.  However, the Judge 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). Therefore, the Judge’s
ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guidelines F and E 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: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board