KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is no prerequisite that documents be notarized as a precondition of their
admissibility.  A possibly erroneous prior address listed in a credit report pertains to the weight
of the evidence rather than its admissibility.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 10-03380.a1
DATE: 07/27/2011
DATE: July 27, 2011
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-03380
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 September 16, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
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 May 12, 2011, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
timely 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 is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board
affirms the Judge’s unfavorable decision. 
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is 54 years old.  He
married in 1980 and has two children who reside with him.  In 2007, he accepted early retirement
from a company for whom he had worked for 21 years.  He then began a small computer business,
and was otherwise unemployed.  After briefly holding a few part-time jobs, Applicant had a full-
time position from August 2008 to August 2009.  He was then terminated.  He has worked for
federal contractors since December 2009.  Before his retirement in 2007, Applicant earned over
$100,000 per year.  He owned his own home, which in July 2010 was worth approximately
$500,000.  Starting in 1990, he owned about 24 credit card accounts, half of them between 2002 and
2007.  In 1990, he bought a townhouse rental property.  He began renting the property to his mother
and his brother in 2002.  In 2004 and 2005, Applicant opened several loan accounts.  He used the
money to make home improvements and to take trips.  In 2006, Applicant applied for a $100,000
home equity line of credit, secured by the townhouse.
In 2007, Applicant’s mother and brother suffered strokes.  His brother lost his job and could
not pay the rent to Applicant.  Applicant’s mother died the day Applicant took his early retirement
in 2007.  After that, he went into some kind of depression and made bad financial decisions.  In
August 2007, he went on a cruise that cost $16,000.  In October 2007, he vacationed in Hawaii.
Applicant was subsequently unemployed and underemployed and lived on his retirement savings.
Between 2007 and 2009, he accumulated numerous delinquencies.  In January 2010, Applicant had
ten active credit card accounts and was at least one month behind on six of them.  The delinquencies
lengthened, and Applicant contacted two debt-consolidation companies but did not hire either.
Pursuant to an agreement with the creditors, Applicant made two payments each on three accounts
prior to January 2010.  Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in July 2010.  His petition shows
his liabilities exceeded his assets by more than $400,000.  He received his discharge in October
2010.  The rental townhouse went into foreclosure.  
Applicant failed to report any financial issues on his 2009 security clearance application.
He did not report that he had debts that were sent to a collection agency; that he had debts more than
90 or 180 days past due; that he had property which had been foreclosed; and that he had debts that
were charged off.  His 2009 credit bureau report shows that Applicant had debts that fell into each
of these categories.  During his investigation, Applicant offered several reasons for his failure to
disclose: he knew the government would learn of his debts through its investigation; he did not think
his debts were 180 days overdue; he had technical problems with the application software; and he
entered telephone numbers without dashes on the form, which caused the software to reject his
application, although his application clearly contains telephone numbers both with and without
dashes.
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant decided to retire from a well-paid
position, and was subsequently unable to maintain payments on his numerous accounts.  Several
events that Applicant could not have foreseen or controlled affected his ability to meet his financial
obligations.  However, Applicant did not act reasonably in response.  Within two months of retiring,
and with a large unresolved debt load, Applicant spent significant funds on two vacations.  The job
had provided a good and stable income, and subsequently, he was unemployed for a year.  Applicant
clearly filed the bankruptcy petition in response to the security investigation, as stated in his
attorney’s letter, rather than in a good-faith effort to resolve his legitimate obligations.  Applicant
was aware of his financial difficulties at the time he filled out his security clearance application.
Applicant’s explanations as to why he did not discuss his financial delinquencies on his application
were not credible, especially in light of the fact that he had his credit bureau report with him when
he completed the application.
Applicant asserts that the evidence the Judge relied upon for her findings of fact contained
numerous errors, including the credit report documents.  He argues that the documents establishing
the Government’s case were not notarized for authentication purposes and were therefore
disqualified as evidence.  Applicant argues that the address listed for him on the credit report is
incorrect, and this fact alone should disqualify the document from consideration.  Applicant’s
assertions do not establish error on the part of the Judge.  
There is no requirement in DOHA cases that documents be notarized as a prerequisite for
admissibility.  Moreover, Applicant offered no objection to the documents presented by the
Government at the time they were offered into evidence.  While pro se Applicant’s are not expected
to present their cases at hearing with the skill expected of a lawyer, they are nevertheless responsible
for taking reasonable steps to protect their interests.  Having failed to object to the Government’s
documents at the time of their introduction, Applicant cannot successfully challenge their admission
for the first time on appeal.
Applicant argues that a credit report introduced by the Government contains an incorrect
address where he never lived, therefore the document was unreliable and should not have been
admitted or considered.  Such an error, unless it conclusively established that the credit report in
question was not that of Applicant, would go only to the weight given the document and would not
render it inadmissible.  Additionally, a review of the credit report indicates that Applicant’s correct
current address appears in the same field of data that contains the alleged erroneous address.  It is
not clear from the document that the address entry complained about by Applicant is a representation
of Applicant’s address. 
The Board cannot be expected to guess what an appealing party believes is factual or legal
error by the Judge.  See ISCR Case No. 00-0050 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001).  To the extent that
Applicant’s brief is clear, he appears to challenge several of the Administrative Judge’s findings of
fact.  The Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable.
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).
Applicant’s arguments are essentially nothing more than an alternate view of the record evidence.
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.  She discussed the applicability of the mitigating factors listed under
Guidelines F and E and indicated in some detail why the mitigating conditions did not apply.  These
conclusions were reasonable given the Judge’s findings about the nature of Applicant’s
indebtedness, the circumstances under which it arose, and the inconsistent explanations offered by
Applicant concerning his failure to report his financial troubles on his security clearance application.
 
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
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 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: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board