KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations including state and
Federal taxes for multiple years.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-11259.a1
DATE: 09/10/2008
DATE: September 10, 2008
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-11259
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 20, 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 May 12, 2008, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey 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 the Judge
did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence, which established that he was
making significant efforts to resolve his outstanding tax debts.  In support of his contention,
Applicant summarizes the evidence he presented below, and argues that it is sufficient to support a
favorable decision under the whole-person concept.  Applicant has not demonstrated the Judge erred.
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 pay state and federal taxes for multiple years.  At the time the
case was submitted for decision, Applicant still had a substantial outstanding debt, and had only
recently undertaken significant action to try to resolve his financial problems.  In light of the
foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that those 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
many 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
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 is sustainable.
3
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