KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is a rebuttable presumption the Judge considered all the evidence.  There is no
requirement that the Judge discuss every piece of evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-10225.a1
DATE: 05/25/2010
DATE: May 28, 2010
In Re:
----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-10225
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 July 6, 2009, 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 March 23, 2010, 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 raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered or gave
adequate weight to her evidence of mitigation and whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm the Judge’s adverse security clearance
decision.
The Judge made the following relevant findings of fact: Since May 2006, Applicant has
worked for a Defense contractor as a security guard.  From April 2005 until May 2006, Applicant
was unemployed or worked at temporary jobs without benefits.  During that time, Applicant incurred
significant medical debt for which she did not have insurance.  Applicant also has significant
delinquent credit card debt, some of which accrued while she was working before April 2005.
Applicant blames some of her debt on the fact that she was a single parent raising three children.
Her children are now all grown and living elsewhere.  Applicant has made arrangements to pay off
a series of delinquent medical bills and has been making payments on them since August 2009; she
has not contacted other creditors to whom she owes larger amounts of money that have been reduced
to judgments.  Although Applicant was aware of at least one judgment and one credit card debt, she
did not list any debts in her responses to financial questions on her security clearance application.
Applicant has consulted an attorney about filing for bankruptcy.  Applicant is highly regarded by her
co-workers and her supervisors.
In her brief, Applicant points out steps she has taken since her hearing to improve her
financial situation.  The Board is not able to consider that information, since it constitutes new
evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Other than the new evidence, we construe Applicant’s appeal
as challenging the Judge’s findings and conclusions under Guideline E.
Applicant maintains that the Judge did not consider or give adequate weight to her evidence
of mitigation and that his decision is therefore arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  There is a
rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence, and there is no requirement
that the Judge mention or discuss every piece of record evidence when reaching a decision.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 07-18303 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2008).   The Judge explained why he concluded
that the omissions from Applicant’s security clearance application were deliberate.  Applicant had
the burden to extenuate or mitigate  the security concerns raised by those omissions.  Directive ¶
E3.1.15.  The Judge discussed Applicant’s explanation and denials.  However, the Judge explained
why Applicant did not present evidence sufficient to overcome the security concerns raised by the
omissions.  The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole-person factors does
not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case.  Thus,
the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable
3
security clearance determination.  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.  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 that 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. 08-03845 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 24, 2009).
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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