KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board does not have the authority to grant Applicant’s request for an opportunity
to submit new evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-04023.a1
DATE: 04/03/2009
DATE: April 3, 3009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-04023
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 August 21, 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 January 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E.
Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive
¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his conclusion that
Applicant had not mitigated his Guideline F security concerns.  Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, in excess of $11,000.  He
has been employed steadily since 2001, although his fiancé, with whom he lives, has experienced
job layoffs in the recent past.  Applicant and his fiancé have over $700 left over each month after
expenses.  In the Conclusions section of his decision, the Judge noted that Applicant is aware of his
financial problems and has the apparent means to remedy them.  However, Applicant has not
demonstrated that he will actually do so.  The Judge noted that Applicant’s debts are recent and that,
despite his fiance’s unemployment, they did not result from causes beyond Applicant’s control.
“[T]here is insufficient information for me to conclude that Applicant has satisfied the doubts about
his suitability for a clearance raised by his debts.”  Decision at 5.  
Applicant has requested an opportunity to submit new matters not contained in the record.
The Board has no authority to grant that request.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall
be received or considered by the Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd.
Mar. 3, 2009).  Applicant expressed disagreement with the manner in which the Judge weighed the
evidence, e. g., an exhibit showing a debt repayment plan.  However, 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 ins
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).  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 Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance” is
sustainable on this record.  Decision at 6.  See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent
with the interests of the national security’”).  
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, 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