KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: After the government presents evidence raising a security concern the burden shift to
the applicant to establish mitigation.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-24093.a1
DATE: 10/16/2008
DATE: October 16, 2008
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24093
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 February 25, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
Applicant had twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,000.  Over $34,000 of the debt was for
1
unpaid taxes to the IRS for tax years 2001through 2004 and to his home state.  He potentially owed an additional
$5,000 to the IRS for tax years 2005 through 2007.  Applicant claimed to have paid or settled seven debts for $1,800
in March 2008, but provided no corroboration that he had done so.
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On June 26, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz,
Jr. 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 unfavorable clearance
decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because Applicant has
acknowledged he “made bad judgments about the handling of [his] taxes” and he is working to
resolve his financial problems.  Given the totality of the record evidence, Applicant’s arguments do
not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Once there has been a concern articulated regarding an applicant’s security eligibility, there
is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  Dorfmont v. Brown,
913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After the governmentth
presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.
Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn simply
on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application
requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 01-14740 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2003).  “Thus, the presence of some mitigating evidence
does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”  See, e.g.,  ISCR
Case No. 05-02833 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar.19, 2007).  “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.  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. 05-03143 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2006).
Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in concluding that
the Guideline F allegations had not been mitigated.  Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the
Judge’s conclusions, he has not established that those conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3.  
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a serious history of not meeting financial
obligations.  At the time the case was submitted for decision, he still had significant outstanding tax
debts  and was still in the process of trying to resolve his financial problems.  In light of the1
foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were recent and
still ongoing.  The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the
3
Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at
4 (App. Bd. Jun. 29, 2005).  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; Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple          
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board