KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s evidence was not enough to mitigate the Guideline F security concerns in
his case.  Applicant submitted new matters, which the Board cannot consider.  Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASENO: 08-08908.a1
DATE: 11/02/2009
DATE: November 2, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-08908
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 February 19, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On August 19, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
“[T]he conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of1
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances.”
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
decision. 
Applicant’s appeal brief contains a discussion of his past financial problems, the difficulties
he has encountered in dealing with them, the efforts he has made in attempting to resolve his
financial delinquencies, and his career accomplishments.  Some of the matters discussed by
Applicant are reiterations of evidence presented and argued at the hearing.  Other matters discussed
by Applicant and documents submitted with the appeal brief are not included in the record below.
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive, ¶ E3.1.29.  The Board construes
Applicant’s appeal as raising the issue of whether the Judge should have concluded that Applicant’s
financial problems are mitigated.  
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 weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the
seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant
conditions and factors.  He discussed the applicability of Guideline F, Mitigating Condition 2  at1
some length, noting Applicant’s motorcycle accident and resulting unemployment were beyond his
control.  However, the Judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that
Applicant acted prudently in monitoring and resolving his financial difficulties in the six years since
the accident.  This conclusion is reasonably supported by the record as are the Judge’s conclusions
about the applicability of the other mitigating conditions and his whole person analysis.
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
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 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 ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett        
   Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board