KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged findings are supported by substantial record evidence.. 
Applicant has not identified any harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-06571.a1
DATE: 04/24/2009
DATE: April24, 2009
In Re:
----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06571
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 December 2, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in finding he had no children, and that there was no tangible evidence1
that several of the debts belonged to Applicant’s father and that Applicant had received credit counseling.  Although
Applicant stated these facts in his response to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM), he provided only one
piece of independent evidence to corroborate his assertions.  The evidence he provided is insufficient to prove the point
he sought to demonstrate.  (Neither Applicant’s father nor his child is listed on his security clearance application.)
Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.  As a result, the Judge did not have an opportunity to
question Applicant and evaluate his credibility in the context of a hearing. 
2
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On March
12, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. 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 under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence.  Applicant asserts that this
evidence shows that his inability to satisfy his outstanding debts was due to a period of
unemployment and medical problems.  He also contends that the Judge erred with respect to several
of his findings of fact.   For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms the Judge’s decision.1
(1) The Board’s review of a Judge’s findings is limited to determining if they are supported
by substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support such a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
“This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from
being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620,
(1966).
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings are based
on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn
from the record.  Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the
case.  Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern
are sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21025 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007).
(2) 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
3
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 serious history of not meeting financial
obligations.  At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant still had significant
outstanding debts and was still trying to resolve his 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 seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible
application of relevant conditions and factors.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to several
of the SOR 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. 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 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)).  Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision
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: Jean E. Smallin             
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
4
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board