KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue
for an a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge’s
decision is erroneous.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07453.a1
DATE: 04/01/2009
DATE: April 1, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07453
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 September 4, 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 2, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey
Anderson 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’s conclusion that
Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation was erroneous.  Finding no
error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 43-year-old Office
Administrator for a defense contractor.  She holds a B.A. degree in business administration.
Applicant has delinquent debt of approximately $21,000.  She has experienced job layoffs in the past
and, at the close of the record, was going through a divorce.  In her current job, Applicant brings
home around $620 per week.  She advised the Judge that, once the divorce court awards her child
support from her spouse, she will be able to devote more of her take-home pay to addressing her
debts.  After the hearing, but before the close of the record, Applicant submitted an exhibit
demonstrating that she had hired a credit counseling service to assist her with her debts.  Applicant’s
references describe her as hardworking, trustworthy, and of good character.   
Applicant appears to challenge the weight which the Judge assigned her mitigating evidence
concerning her divorce, unemployment, and efforts to obtain credit counseling.  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).  For example, Applicant’s having sought credit
counseling following the hearing is entitled to less weight than would a demonstrated history of debt
repayment.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-13041 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008).  
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)).  The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record.
Decision at 7.  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