KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s statement that Applicant submitted nothing with regard to the $14,000
delinquent credit card debt is error but it is harmless because Exhibit submitted by Applicant is
not of high probative value.  Therefore, it does not justify a remand.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-01800.a1
DATE: 08/19/2010
DATE: August 19, 2010
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-01800
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 August 28, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
The SOR contained ten allegations relating to Applicant’s financial difficulties.  The Judge made formal1
findings in Applicant’s favor on seven of the allegations.  Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. 
Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ 20(d). 2
2
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 May 20, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola
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 erred by concluding that
there was insufficient evidence to establish that Applicant initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.   For the following reasons, the Board affirms the1
Judge’s unfavorable decision. 
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: Applicant is
liable for a credit card debt in the amount of about $14,377.  Applicant stated that he would address
this admitted debt, but, despite having been given two months after his hearing to do so, he has
submitted nothing in this regard.  This debt has not been addressed, and as such, is still outstanding.
Applicant filed his federal tax return for tax year 2004 in January of 2008.  In March of 2010,
Applicant retained counsel to address the $27,855 owed in back taxes for tax year 2004.  This
counsel is in the initial process of gathering the necessary financial data and income source
information to address the debt.  Applicant filed his state income tax returns for tax years 2005 and
2006 in August 2009.  In March 2010 Applicant retained counsel to address the $16,059 owed in
back taxes for tax years 2005 and 2006.  The Judge reached the following conclusions: With his
retirement from the Navy, Applicant’s income was substantially reduced, and he could not keep
paying on his credit card and his children’s college loan payments.  There is not enough evidence
to show that he initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.2
Applicant has offered nothing to show that he has addressed his significant credit card debt and he
has only recently begun to address his state and federal back taxes, which are substantial.  Applicant
has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.  
Applicant takes issue with the Judge’s analysis of the $14,000 credit card debt, stating the
Judge overlooked and did not consider evidence submitted by him that demonstrated he was
addressing the debt, and that progress was being made toward its resolution.  Applicant points to a
document that he sent to the Judge during a period post-hearing when the record was held open to
allow Applicant to present additional matters.  The document purports to be a settlement agreement
between Applicant and attorneys representing the creditor and contains an assertion that an initial
payment toward debt retirement had been made.  
A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he or she
specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009);
ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  In this case, the Judge found that Applicant
At the hearing, Applicant testified that he might have owed as much as $50,000 in back taxes, even though he3
denied the government’s allegations regarding back taxes in his answer to the SOR. Tr. at p. 83.  Other than his assertions
in the SOR and on appeal, there is nothing in the record that undercuts the Judge’s findings regarding the income tax
arrearages. 
3
submitted nothing with regard to the issue of addressing the debt.  Given Applicant’s submission,
included in the record as Applicant’s Exhibit D, the Judge’s finding is error.  Given the Judge’s
language, it is not clear to the Board whether or not the Judge considered the evidence.  Before
remanding the case to the Judge, however, the Board must evaluate the error in light of the evidence
submitted and the record as a whole to determine whether the error is harmful.  
Applicant’s Exhibit D is a one page letter authored by Applicant and supposedly submitted
to a law firm representing the creditor.  It begins, “This memo is drawn up to document the
arrangement made over the phone between me and your representative . . . , concerning case # . . .
previously held as a . . . account.”  The letter goes on to make various unilateral representations by
Applicant about the nature of the agreement and the fact that an initial payment was made.  The date
of the letter indicates that it was prepared two months after the hearing at the very end of the time
frame afforded Applicant to submit additional documents.  The letter is unsigned.  Given these
attributes, the probative value of the exhibit is not high.  The exhibit does not carry nearly the
probative force of a signed agreement executed by both parties or other evidence clearly establishing
a mutual understanding between the parties and the making of an initial payment.  The burden was
on Applicant to demonstrate matters in mitigation regarding this debt.  After considering the exhibit
along with the evidentiary record as a whole, the Board concludes that even if the Judge failed to
consider Applicant’s Exhibit D, that failure would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the
case, as the Judge could have reasonably concluded that the exhibit did not satisfy Applicant’s
burden of establishing mitigation.  Thus, the Judge’s error was harmless.     
The Board construes Applicant’s arguments regarding his tax accounts to be that he either
owes much less in back taxes than the government alleges, or, in the case of the state taxes, he now
owes nothing at all.   Applicant also asserts that his efforts in getting the tax disputes resolved have3
been ongoing and are therefore mitigating.  Much of Applicant’s argument regarding delinquent
taxes is based on representations and documentary evidence that are not part of the evidentiary
record.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.29.
After a review of the record, the Board concludes that there is substantial evidence to support the
Judge’s finding that Applicant owed federal and state tax arrearages as alleged in the SOR, and that
the amounts are substantial.  The record also reasonably supports the Judge’s conclusion that
Applicant has only recently begun to address his delinquent income taxes and that these efforts are
not of sufficient magnitude to mitigate the government’s security concerns.  
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
4
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 adequately discussed why the disqualifying conduct established under Guideline F was
not mitigated.
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: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board