KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant’s interpretation is not corroborated by the record evidence and does not
establish error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-03785.a1
DATE: 01/31/2011
DATE: January 31, 2011
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-03785
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 January 15, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
2
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 November 23, 2010, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant 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 was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the
Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable decision. 
The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant’s financial problems began in
1995.  At that time he was self-employed and he did not make estimated quarterly tax payments to
the IRS.  When he filed his 1995 federal tax return, he owed $25,000 that he was unable to pay.
Applicant did not try to arrange a repayment plan because he believed his income inadequate to
satisfy the IRS.  In February 1998, the IRS assessed Applicant $37,426 for unpaid taxes, penalties
and interest and filed a tax lien against him for that amount in August 2002.  The lien remains
unresolved on Applicant’s credit reports.  Applicant also owes the IRS for tax year 2003.  The
balance owed was $9,814.38 in May 2008 and has been reduced to $8,013.95 through application
by the IRS of overpayments made by Applicant on his 2008 taxes.  Applicant has no other plan for
paying the IRS other than allowing the IRS to continue to seize future overpayments.  Applicant’s
other three debts total less than $1,000.  However, he has provided no documentation of his efforts
to dispute the debts or confirm their payment.  Applicant failed to disclose the 2002 IRS lien on a
January 2009 security clearance application.  He also answered “no” to questions requiring him to
disclose debts currently 90, or ever 180, days past due.  Applicant’s claim of innocent mistake is not
credible.  When he sat down to complete the clearance application, he knew he had a tax lien against
him and he knew he had past due taxes for 2003.  Further, he knew in a broad sense that the
government was interested in his financial condition, and disclosed no information that would put
the government on notice of his financial problems.  In January 2003, Applicant was charged with
a domestic violence offense.  Although Applicant denies the charge, the disposition of the offense
placed him on 12 months supervised probation and required completion of an anger-management
program.  Applicant would not acknowledge committing the crime after the program requested that
he do so, and he was told not to return to the program.  Applicant considered this a negation of the
requirement to attend the program, but the program reported his dismissal as a violation of his
probation.  Applicant moved to another state and failed to report to his probation officer.  In
February 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued.  When Applicant discovered the warrant, he
attempted to have it recalled and his probation dismissed.  His motion was denied in March 2006
and the warrant remains outstanding.
The Judge concluded as follows: The government established a case for disqualification
under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns.  His financial difficulties
are both recent and multiple.  He produced no evidence of circumstances beyond his control, and
he has not acted responsibly in addressing his debts.  He has received no credit or financial
counseling, nor has he demonstrated that his financial problems are under control, or that he has a
plan to bring them under control.  He has not made a good-faith effort to satisfy his debts.  The
3
government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E and Applicant did not mitigate
the security concerns.  In addition to his falsification of his clearance application, Applicant’s failure
to resolve an outstanding warrant in another state demonstrates poor judgment and is inconsistent
with access to classified information.  Applicant’s conduct suggests he is willing to put his personal
needs ahead of legitimate government interests.
Applicant argues that the Judge misconstrued portions of the record evidence and reached
erroneous conclusions.  In essence, Applicant states that credit reports in evidence are in error, some
detailed findings of the Judge regarding his finances are in error, he was truthful and honest to the
best of his ability when answering the government’s questions, there are no warrants outstanding
against him, he is a reliable and trustworthy individual, and he has mitigated the government’s case.
Applicant’s interpretation of the record is not corroborated by the record evidence.  Absent such
corroboration, Applicant’s assertions do not establish error on the part of the Judge. 
Applicant’s brief contains sections of narrative that detail the facts and circumstances
surrounding his financial problems and personal conduct.  Some of these representations were not
a part of the record below.  The Board cannot consider new evidence.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant cites evidence he maintains supports a granting of his security clearance.  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.
The Judge properly considered the whole pattern of Applicant’s handling of his finances and his
personal conduct, which included an instance of falsification, and concluded that Applicant had not
mitigated the government’s concerns.  The Judge’s findings of fact and his conclusions are
reasonably supported by the record evidence.
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.
4
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