KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: 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. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-06536.a1
DATE: 05/16/2011
DATE: May 16, 2011
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06536
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 April 1, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
2
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 February 28, 2011, 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 include 13
delinquent debts totaling over $54,000.  Applicant’s delinquent indebtedness includes a $12,000
past-due mortgage, seven collection accounts, three charged-off accounts, a judgment and an
Internal Revenue Service lien.  Applicant’s explanation regarding his first wife’s unsuccessful battle
with cancer is insufficient given the chronology of Applicant’s indebtedness and failure to file tax
returns until several years after her death.  Applicant has not sought counseling.
The Judge concluded as follows: The government established a case for disqualification
under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns.  He produced no evidence
of circumstances beyond his control, and, except for three debts 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 government established a case for
disqualification under Guideline F and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns.
Applicant’s appeal relies, in part, on new evidence, which the Board cannot consider.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
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 to the best of his
recollection when testifying, 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 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.  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. 10-00278 at 2 (App. Bd.
Mar. 18, 2011).  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
3
handling of his finances 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. 09-02732 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2011).  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: Michael D. Hipple              
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board