KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Although Applicant disagreed with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, the record as
a whole demonstrates that the Judge’s decision is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 07-04413.a1
DATE: 09/15/2008
DATE: September 15, 2008 
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-04413
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 a hearing.  On May 30, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge’s favorable finding under Guideline E is not at issue on appeal.1
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.2
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.1
 
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
did not give adequate weight to the mitigating evidence.  In support of his requests, Applicant
summarizes the favorable evidence he presented below and describes his ongoing efforts to resolve
his financial problems.   Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred. 2
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 and serious history of not meeting
financial obligations.  At the time of the hearing, Applicant still had substantial 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. 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.  He found in favor of Applicant under Guideline E and as to several of the
factual allegations under Guideline F.  However, 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.  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 Guideline F is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billet        
Jeffrey D. Billett
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