KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable security clearance decision.  Applicant here had a lengthy and serious history of not
meeting financial obligations.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-03128
DATE: 10/24/2008
DATE: October 24, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-03128
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 April 18, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
Applicant makes two assertions regarding the Judge’s findings of fact.  She states that the Judge made an1
erroneous finding regarding her daughter’s age, and the Judge neglected to mention Applicant’s receipt of a bonus award
from her employer in March 2008.  The error regarding the daughter’s age is of no consequence, as it had no bearing
on the outcome of the security clearance decision.  The Judge’s failure to mention the bonus award is not error.  There
is  no requirement that the Judge mention every piece of evidence in his security clearance decision and there is also a
presumption that the Judge considered the entire record unless there is evidence to the contrary.  The Board will not
presume that the Judge failed to consider Applicant’s bonus award.
Some of the efforts described on appeal are in addition to the efforts contained in the record below.  The Board2
cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
2
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 the case be decided on the written record.  On August 20, 2008, after considering the
record (which included submissions by Department Counsel and Applicant), Administrative Judge
Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.   For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable1
decision. 
Applicant essentially contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because
the Judge did not give adequate weight to the mitigating evidence and other favorable evidence about
her life and her military career.  In support of her requests, Applicant summarizes the favorable
evidence she presented below and describes her ongoing efforts to resolve her financial problems.2
Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that 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 and serious history of not meeting
financial obligations.  At the time of the close of the record, 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
3
the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating conditions
and whole-person factors.  He found in favor of Applicant as to two of the factual allegations listed
in the SOR.  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 evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational
connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfs. 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 is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett           
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board