KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: A judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence, and a party’s differing
interpretation of that evidence is not sufficient to rebut that presumption. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 08-09626.a1
DATE: 08/05/2009
DATE: August 5, 2009
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-09626
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
1The Judge’s findings for Applicant under the remaining portions of paragraph 1 of the SOR, and paragraph
2, are not at issue in this appeal. 
 
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 12, 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 June 17, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal:  whether the Judge erred in his application
of the pertinent mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.
Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had three delinquent debts, which raised Guideline F security
concerns.1  He concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  The
Board construes Applicant’s brief as contending that the Judge did not consider the entirety of the
record evidence or that he did not properly weigh the evidence.  A Judge is presumed to have
considered all the evidence, and Applicant’s differing interpretation of the evidence, as presented
in his appeal brief, is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No 07-00196
at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009) and ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  The
Judge’s descriptions of Applicant’s testimony as to the delinquent debts is a fair summary of the
text.  Furthermore, the record provides no basis to conclude that the Judge weighed the evidence 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).  
The Board notes that the Judge’s discussion of his whole-person analysis is brief.
Nonetheless, we cannot conclude on this record that it is erroneous.  
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 Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national
security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.
Decision at 8.  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: Michael D. Hipple            
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board