KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Judge erred in her analysis of the mitigating
conditions.  The Board cannot consider evidence not included in the record.  Adverse decision
affirmed. 
CASE NO: 09-07456.a1
DATE: 05/19/2011
DATE: May 19, 2011
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-07456
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 October 1, 2010, 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 February 14, 2011, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge
erred in concluding that Applicant’s efforts to resolve his indebtedness were insufficient to mitigate
the government’s security concerns.  Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge’s
decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
On appeal, Applicant submits  several documents which post-date the Judge’s decision and
were not part of the record evidence. Furthermore, other documents submitted by Applicant,
although they predate the Judge’s decision were not part of the record before the Judge. The Board
cannot consider this new evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had  significant outstanding debts, and was still
trying to resolve his financial problems. Although the Judge found that one of his outstanding debts
is being paid, and that he disputes some others, the Judge reasonably concluded that there is little
indication Applicant’s delinquent accounts are being resolved or are under control . Decision at 6-7.
In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems
were still ongoing.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007).  The Judge
weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the
disqualifying conduct, and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors.
While she found in favor of Applicant as to one of the SOR factual allegations, she reasonably
explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security
concerns.  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).
The Board does not review a case de novo.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes
that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her 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
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