KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The government’s security concern was established when Applicant admitted the
delinquent debts alleged in the SOR.  Applicant was responsible for providing evidence to rebut,
explain, extenuate or mitigate the security concerns and had the ultimate burden of persuasion. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-02239.a1
DATE:08/19/2010
DATE: August 19, 2010
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-02239
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
Along with her appeal brief, Applicant submitted evidence of her discharge in bankruptcy in December 20091
and a certificate documenting financial counseling dated the day before the Judge’s decision was issued.  This
information is also new evidence which the Board cannot consider.
    
In her appeal, Applicant states that she expected to appear before a Judge at some point.  This is difficult to2
understand in light of her election not to have a hearing.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 17, 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 decision on the written record.  On May 27, 2010, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to 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
affirms the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following relevant factual findings:  Applicant is 61 years old.  Applicant
admitted owing the nine delinquent debts alleged in the SOR, which amounted to $62,180.
Applicant indicated that she had filed for bankruptcy, but did not document whether any of her debts
were discharged.  Except for problems she experienced at one job and two months when she could
not work for health reasons, Applicant did not demonstrate that her financial problems were due to
circumstances beyond her control.  Applicant did not document a good-faith effort to resolve her
financial problems.
Applicant states that she is appealing the Judge’s decision because “there is information left
out, not well explained, or excluded mostly on [Applicant’s] part.”  Applicant then goes on to
explain her job history in greater detail than was contained in the record previously.  The Board
cannot consider that information, since it is new evidence that was not in the record below.   See1
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Moreover, the additional information is not indicative of error on the part of
the Judge, since it was not available to him when he reviewed the record.  
The government’s security concern was established when Applicant admitted the debts
alleged in the SOR.  Applicant was responsible for providing evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate the security concerns and had the ultimate burden of persuasion in obtaining a favorable
security clearance.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Applicant received instructions and a copy of the
Directive when she received the SOR.  Applicant had the opportunity to submit additional
information when she responded to the SOR.  She requested a decision on the written record without
a hearing before a Judge.   After Department Counsel compiled the File of Relevant Material2
(FORM) for the Judge to review, Applicant had another opportunity to submit additional information
3
for the Judge to consider, but did not respond.  The fact that Applicant failed to submit some
potentially relevant mitigating evidence is not indicative of any denial of procedural due process
rights, since she was notified of her responsibility to do so and of the importance of doing so.
The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of facts is limited to determining if they
are supported by substantial evidence—“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative
agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime
Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings are based
on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn
from the record.  Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of
security concern are sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21025 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007).
In his Findings of Fact, the Judge specifically referred to the mitigating circumstances
contained in the FORM.  Decision at 5-6.  However, 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, or vice versa.  An applicant’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. 08-01105 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 15, 2008).
A review of the record indicates that the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence in the record
against Applicant’s financial history and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating
conditions and factors.  Decision at 5-6.  The Judge reasonably explained why the mitigating
evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns.  Id.  The Board does not
review a case de novo.  The record 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).  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, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines 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.’” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).
Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable. 
4
ORDER
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision 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: Jean E. Smallin         
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board