KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Judge reasonably explained his conclusion that
Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in his case.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 09-03480.a1
DATE: 06/02/2011
DATE: June 2, 2011
In Re:
------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-03480
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 26, 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 hearing.  On April 6, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
1 Applicant also related some steps he has taken since the close of the record.  The Board cannot consider
information that was not part of the record below.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s security clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following discussion, the
Board affirms the Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance.
The Judge made the following relevant factual findings: Applicant immigrated to the United
States from Vietnam after high school and earned an engineering degree in the United States
thereafter.  Applicant became a U.S. citizen in 1984.  Applicant has been separated from his wife
since 2003 and has a son in college.  Applicant’s SOR alleges six debts totaling $45,863.  Two of
the debts represent unpaid income tax owed to two states.  One is unpaid federal income tax, which
Applicant arranged to pay off by automatic deductions from his checking account.  Another is
unpaid student loans owed to the Department of Education (DOE).  DOE initiated a garnishment
action to collect that debt from Applicant’s pay.  The last two are credit card debts.  
In his appeal brief, Applicant repeated the steps he has taken to settle the above debts,
including some steps taken while the record was held open after the hearing.1  Applicant argues that
the Judge did not give adequate weight to the evidence he presented in mitigation.  Applicant has
not demonstrated error on the part of the Judge, since the presence of some mitigating evidence does
not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance determination.  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 that 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. 08-11983 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jan. 28, 2011).  
In this case, the Judge found in Applicant’s favor with regard to his federal income tax debt
and noted Applicant’s efforts to settle his other debt.  The Judge discussed the possible application
of the relevant mitigating conditions. Decision at 6-8.  The Judge reasonably explained why
Applicant’s actions were insufficient to satisfy the government’s security concerns.  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 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)).  Therefore, the Judge’s adverse decision under
Guideline F is sustainable on this record.  See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988).
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett          
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin            
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board