KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s history of delinquent debt includes substantial arrearages in his federal
income tax.  Judge reasonably concluded that Applicant’s debt problems were ongoing.  Adverse
decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 06-20964.a2
DATE: 11/12/2008
DATE: November 12, 2008
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-20964
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 May 2, 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 October 31, 2007, after the hearing, the
Administrative Judge granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel
appealed, and in a decision dated April 10, 2008, the Appeal Board remanded the case for a new
decision.  Because the original Judge was no longer employed by DOHA, the case was remanded
to a new Judge.  After a subsequent hearing, 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 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 unfavorable
decision. 
Applicant essentially contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because
the Judge did not give adequate weight to mitigating evidence and other favorable evidence about
his efforts to rectify his ongoing financial problems.  In support of his request, Applicant summarizes
the favorable evidence he presented below.  Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the
Judge’s ultimate conclusions are in error.
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 has a history of debt delinquencies, including
substantial federal income tax arrearages.  The Judge also found that debt payments consume
approximately half of Applicant’s income, that Applicant and his wife spend consistently beyond
their means, that their indebtedness is excessive, and that Applicant’s negative cash flow is
significant.  While Applicant was current on all of his accounts at the close of the record, the Judge
noted that his debt load continued to increase.  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 Board does not review a case de novo.  After reviewing the record,
the Board concludes that the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision 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: Jean E. Smallin            
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board