KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had demonstrated no reasonable plan for debt
repayment was sustainable.  Prior decision cited by Applicant has significant differences from
Applicant’s case and, therefore, does not establish error by the Judge.  Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASENO: 08-11699.a1
DATE: 06/08/2010
DATE: June 8, 2010
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-11699
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Samuel Bluck, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 10, 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
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On March 19, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny
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 adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board
The record was kept open for a period after the hearing for the receipt of additional documentary evidence.1
affirms the Judge’s unfavorable decision. 
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant’s
financial problems began in 2004 when his sister and mother were incarcerated.  He provided $3,000
toward his mother’s attorney’s fees.  He had previously signed a note for a $41,000 automobile for
his sister with the understanding that she would make monthly payments to him.  In 2004,
Applicant’s sister lost her job and stopped making payments to Applicant.  Also in 2004, Applicant
purchased a pick-up truck for $13,000 and an SUV for $27,000.  The combined annual salary of
Applicant and his wife at the time was $78,000.  After two months, Applicant stopped making
payments on his sister’s car as it was interfering with his ability to pay his other debts.  The car was
repossessed and sold with a balance of $11,000 remaining to be paid.  Applicant made no other
payments on the debt and after five years passed, the debt grew to $20,550.  The payments on
Applicant’s other two vehicles fell delinquent as well, but he managed to work out an agreement
with the creditors.  Applicant recently retired the loans on these vehicles.  Applicant also fell behind
on his payments on several credit card accounts.  
In 2007 Applicant received $24,286 from the sale of a home.  He had anticipated using the
money to pay his debts.  However, he had to make a $18,000 down payment on a new home.
Applicant was able to pay off two debts with the remainder, but other delinquencies remained.
Applicant incurred a $5,000 debt to furnish the new house.  Applicant is current on the debt but still
owes $1,400.  Applicant was able to settle two credit card debts by getting the creditors to accept less
than the full amount owed.  Applicant settled these accounts by means of a $5,000 loan.  In 2009,
Applicant contacted and received financial counseling from a consumer credit counseling service.
While he is now current on his mortgage and ten other accounts, Applicant has not paid on two
outstanding delinquent debts in the aggregate amount of $16,700.  In October 2008 Applicant stated
he wanted to repay the debt, and he restated this intent at the hearing.  Following the hearing,
Applicant’s counsel indicated that the debt no longer appears on Applicant’s credit report.   No1
indication of a repayment plan or the establishment of a repayment plan has been received. 
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s debts are a continuing course of conduct.  Two
creditors were not paid until after the hearing, and two debts (with one creditor) remain unpaid, with
no evidence of a repayment plan.  Applicant’s numerous debts were not incurred under unusual
circumstances.  Applicant’s unexpected debts when he paid his mother’s attorney’s fees and his
sister’s car liability were beyond his control for which he deserves some mitigation.  However, these
events occurred in 2004.  Subsequently, Applicant’s household income was between $78,000 and
$95,000, and it has been more than five years since the events.  Applicant did not act responsibly
under the circumstances.  Since there is no clear indication that the remaining debts are being
resolved, Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.
Applicant asserts that, contrary to the Judge’s findings and conclusions, he has acted
responsibly regarding his outstanding debts given his circumstances.  He argues that the Judge’s
decision contained an insufficient articulation and unsatisfactory explanation of financially
irresponsible behavior.  He notes that a plan for immediate or simultaneous repayment of all debts
is not required and all that is required is that he act responsibly and develop a reasonable plan for
repayment accompanied by concomitant conduct.  Applicant argues that the record shows that he has
satisfied this requirement.  Applicant’s arguments do not establish error on the part of the Judge.
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 the mitigating factors listed under Guideline
F and indicated in some detail why some mitigating conditions did not apply and why others only
partially applied and why those partial applications did not ultimately mitigate the financial concerns
raised in the case.  Reading the Judge’s decision as a whole, the Board concludes that the Judge
decided that Applicant had no reasonable plan for repaying his outstanding debts, given the fact that
Applicant had indicated his intent to pay on earlier occasions and had not followed through.  The
Judge also noted that in a post-hearing statement, Applicant drew attention to the absence of the
outstanding debts on a recent credit report.  These facts led the Judge to doubt whether Applicant
genuinely intended to satisfy the past due obligations.  This conclusion was reasonable given the
record evidence.  In other parts of the decision, the Judge also questioned why certain debts of
Applicant were not retired sooner given Applicant’s income level and the relatively modest level of
the debts.  The Judge properly evaluated the totality of Applicant’s debt history when addressing the
issue of whether Applicant had acted responsibly regarding his finances.  Given the facts of this case,
the Judge was not required, as a matter of law, to conclude that Applicant had mitigated the
government’s case.  
Applicant relies on the Board’s rulings in ISCR Case No. 08-06567 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009)
to establish error on the part of the Judge in this case.  The Board concludes that the facts in the cited
case are significantly different from the instant case, and, therefore, nothing contained therein
establishes error on the part of the Judge in this case.
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: Michael Y. Ra’anan             
   Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                  
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board