KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant argues that the Judge did not correctly weigh the mitigating evidence.  A
party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or ability to ague for a different
interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in
an arbitrary or capricious manner.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-03180.a1
DATE: 04/17/2009
DATE: April 17, 2009
In Re:
----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-03180
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On October 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)
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On February 20, 2009, after the hearing, Chief Administrative Judge Robert
Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
did not correctly weigh Applicant’s mitigating evidence.  Applicant argues that this evidence was
sufficient to warrant a favorable decision.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
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 and had only recently started to resolve her financial problems.  In light of the foregoing,
the Judge could reasonably conclude that those 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.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to two of
the SOR factual allegations, but reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient
to overcome the government’s security concerns.  The Board does not review a case de novo.  
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the 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 unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
3
Order
The decision of the Judge 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: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board