KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The adverse impact which a decision may have on an applicant’s employment is not a
factor that can be considered in evaluating security clearance eligibility.  Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASENO: 08-07745.a1
DATE: 03/11/2009
DATE: March 11, 2009 
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07745
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 August 27, 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 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 12, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to Guideline E and SOR paragraph 1.h.  Those favorable findings1
are not at issue on appeal.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.1
Applicant asks that the Judge’s adverse decision be reversed, arguing that he is doing
everything he can to resolve his financial problems and the denial of a clearance will adversely
impact his employment situation.  He also questions whether the Judge saw the post-hearing
submissions he faxed to her.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision
is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
The adverse impact of a decision on an Applicant’s employment situation is not a factor that
can be considered in evaluating his security clearance eligibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-21012
at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005).
The Judge’s decision indicates that Applicant’s post-hearing submission “was timely received
and marked as (AE) A.”  Decision at 2.  There is a presumption that the Judge considered all the
evidence in the record unless she specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-08623
at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 29, 2005).  Applicant has not rebutted that presumption.
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 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).  A party’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 history of not meeting financial
obligations.  She specifically noted that Applicant had not voluntarily paid any debts listed in the
SOR and had admitted that he was going to file for bankruptcy.  Decision at 5.  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 the disqualifying
conduct and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors.  She reasonably
explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security
concerns.  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
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)).  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: Michael D. Hipple           
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board