KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s efforts at debt repayment had not made much of a
dent in her overall past-due indebtedness and that she was likely to experience additional
financial difficulties was reasonably supported by the record evidence.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 07-09815.a1
DATE: 01/30/2009
DATE: January 30, 2009 
In Re:
----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-09815
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Judge found in favor of Applicant regarding Guideline E.  That portion of the case is not at issue on appeal.1
The principal assertion being that Applicant has cut her debt load in half in the period of a year after she2
employed the aid of a debt consolidation service.  There is no support for this assertion in the written record.
[T]he individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.3
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 7, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992,
as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested the case be decided upon the written record.  On
November 24, 2008, after considering the record,  Administrative Judge Joseph Testan 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 erred by not applying
Guideline F mitigating factors in her favor.   For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s1
unfavorable decision. 
Applicant offers new evidence in the form of factual assertions that are not found in the
record below.   The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  2
Applicant argues that despite her earlier financial irresponsibility, she has been making an
honest attempt to correct the situation and repay her debts.  She states that she has both the
willingness and the ability to satisfy her debts and because of this, the Judge’s unfavorable decision
should be reversed.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge has committed 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 weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the
seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant
conditions and factors.  He concluded that Guideline F Mitigating Condition 20.d.  applied to the3
case, but reasonably explained why the applicability of that factor was of insufficient strength to
overcome the government’s security concerns.  Specifically, the Judge concluded that, given all of
the circumstances indicated by the record, that Applicant’s efforts at repayment had not made much
of a dent in her overall past-due indebtedness and that she was likely to experience additional
financial difficulties as she continues to address her past-due indebtedness.  This conclusion is
reasonably supported by the record evidence.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  The
favorable 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).  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)).  “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).  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: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields     
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board