KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant argued that the Judge did not give appropriate weight to the evidence in
mitigation which Applicant had provided.  However, disagreement with a Judge’s weighing of
the evidence does not demonstrate error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 07-08157.a1
DATE: 11/14/2008
DATE: November 14, 2008
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-08157
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
George G. Boyd, Jr., Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On January 14, 2008, 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 July 24, 2008, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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 issues on appeal:  whether the Judge’s material findings are
based on substantial evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision under
Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
 
(1) Applicant contends that the Judge erred in estimating the amount of Applicant’s monthly
expenses in 2003 and 2004.  Applicant’s assertion in this regard does not demonstrate harmful error.
The Board’s review of a Judge’s findings is limited to determining if they are supported by
substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support such a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.  Directive ¶
E3.1.32.1. “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing
two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding
from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607,
620 (1966).
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings of security
concern are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences
that could be drawn from the record.  Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change
the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21025 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007).
(2) Applicant also contends that the Judge did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s
mitigating evidence.  That evidence indicated that Applicant’s financial problems were due in part
to loss of employment and a medical emergency, and that Applicant had been unable to resolve his
outstanding debts because he had occupied low-paying jobs since his return to employment.
Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or
contrary to law.
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The presence of some mitigating evidence
does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable 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.  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. 07-05632 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2008).
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).  A review of
the record indicates that 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.  She reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant
had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns.  The
Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable record 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).  The Judge examined the relevant data and
articulated a satisfactory explanation for her 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)). “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when
‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin          
Jean E. Smallin
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