KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence.  There is
no requirement that the Judge discuss every piece of evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-18303.a1
DATE: 11/13/2008
DATE: November 13, 2008
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-18303
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 8, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
The Judge found in Applicant’s favor regarding Guideline E.  The Judge’s conclusions as to Guideline E are1
not in issue.
The Judge concluded, among other things, that although most of the delinquent accounts are no longer listed2
on Applicant’s recent credit reports, it appears to be the result of the passage of time rather than Applicant’s resolution
of the debts.  Decision at 5.
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 13, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On appeal, Applicant raises the following issue: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge made the following relevant findings of fact: Applicant is 38 years old.  Her
husband recently retired from the United States Navy after 20 years of service.  Applicant and her
husband lived overseas from 2003 to 2006 due to her husband’s service.  While overseas, Applicant
completed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position in which she indicated that she did not have any
debts delinquent by 180 days, and later a Questionnaire for National Security Position in which she
indicated that she did not have any debts delinquent by 90 or 180 days.  A background investigation
revealed that Applicant had 11 delinquent accounts, which had been placed for collection in 2004
or earlier.  Applicant testified that she did not know she had any delinquent debts until she was
interviewed in connection with the investigation.  In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted to
some of the debts and denied others.  In response to interrogatories, Applicant indicated that all her
delinquent accounts were closed or resolved because they no longer appear on her credit report, and
she submitted a credit report to that effect.  Applicant testified that she did not pay any of the debts.
She disputed some of the debts, but did not follow up with the credit reporting agencies.  All of
Applicant’s open accounts are current.  Applicant’s husband testified to her trustworthiness.
In her appeal, Applicant primarily restates portions of the record evidence in an effort to rebut
the Judge’s conclusions.   The appeal brief contains new evidence regarding Applicant’s efforts to1
resolve the debts listed in the SOR.  The Board cannot consider this new evidence.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29.       
Applicant argues that she has mitigated any security concerns that might exist under
Guideline F and that the Judge either did not consider or did not give adequate weight to her
evidence of mitigation.  There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record
evidence, unless the Judge specifically states otherwise; and there is no requirement that the Judge
mention or discuss every piece of record evidence when reaching a decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 04-08134 at 3 (App. Bd. May 16, 2005).   Applicant admitted many of the SOR allegations
against her.  The burden then shifted to Applicant to extenuate or mitigate the security concerns
raised by those allegations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The Judge concluded that Applicant did not present
evidence sufficient to overcome the security concerns raised.   The application of disqualifying and2
3
mitigating conditions and whole-person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more
of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  Thus, the presence of some mitigating evidence does
not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security determination.  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 that 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. 06-23384 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 2007). 
Order
The Judge’s decision 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; James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board