KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant did not respond to the File of Relevant Material when he had an opportunity
to do so.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-07382.a1
DATE: 07/08/2011
DATE: July 8, 2011
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-07382
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 27, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
elected to have his case decided on the written record.  Applicant did not submit written materials
in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  On March 29, 2011,
Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 41 years old and is
married with one child.  Applicant has delinquent debts with nationally recognized credit cards
totaling over $109,000.  Prior to the fall of 2004, Applicant claims his credit cards were maintained
in accordance with his agreement with the creditors, his payments were on time, and more than the
minimum amount due was paid.  In late 2004, the creditors raised the interest rates on the accounts
from 13% to 24%.  Applicant withheld payment on the credit card bills because of what he classifies
as the creditors’ predatory lending practices.  Applicant claims that the creditors’ actions were not
in accordance with his agreement with the creditors.  Applicant contacted each creditor by telephone
requesting an explanation for the interest rate increase.  Applicant has not presented documentation
concerning any payments made on the debts.  He has not presented any documentation concerning
any action taken, legal or otherwise, to challenge the alleged predatory lending practices of the
creditors.
The Judge reached the following conclusions: The credit reports and Applicant’s statements
establish three delinquent accounts.  The credit report alone is sufficient to establish the other two
delinquent debts.  No mitigating conditions apply.  The behavior is current and ongoing because
Applicant refuses to pay the credit card debt.  Applicant is able to pay his debts.  He did not present
any evidence of any counseling or even attempts to contact experts to verify the correctness of his
understanding of his legal obligations concerning the debts.  He did not present any evidence to
show payment of the debt, good-faith or otherwise.  Applicant has not presented adequate evidence
to show he is resolving or intends to resolve his delinquent debts.  
Applicant asserts that he was not living outside his financial means, he made an earnest
attempt to satisfy the debt, and any concerns raised by his debts can be mitigated.  He argues that
the Judge’s statement that he has not established a meaningful track record of paying delinquent
debts is misleading.  Applicant indicates that he disagrees with the Judge’s analysis that none of the
mitigating conditions apply to the case.  Applicant maintains that he has unsuccessfully attempted
to get his creditors to give him a “final substantiated invoice” so that he may accurately repay the
amounts he owes without running the risk of overpaying his creditors.  Applicant states that despite
his efforts, he is not getting responses from his creditors.  Applicant’s assertions do not establish
error on the part of the Judge.  
Applicant’s brief contains numerous assertions regarding his debt situation, his approach to
those debts, and his motivations in not making payments.  Applicant also attached numerous
3
documents to his appeal brief.  Applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the
Government’s FORM but did not do so.  The Board cannot consider new evidence.  See, Directive
¶ E3.1.29. 
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.  He discussed the applicability of the mitigating factors listed under
Guideline F and indicated in some detail why the mitigating conditions did not apply.  This
conclusion was reasonable given the Judge’s findings that Applicant has historically refused to pay
his debts because he did not consider them legitimate, and yet Applicant produced no evidence
establishing attempts to resolve any disputes with his creditors.  In the absence of evidence that
Applicant has engaged in any meaningful debt resolution, the Judge’s ultimate conclusion in the case
is 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.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
   Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: Jean E. Smallin            
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
CONCURRING OPINION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JAMES E. MOODY
I agree with my colleagues in their resolution of this appeal.  The Judge’s ultimate
conclusion–that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion regarding mitigation–is
supported by the record.
Applicant’s Response to the SOR avers that he had been seeking, unsuccessfully, for his
creditors to validate their claims, in accordance with Federal law.  This could be construed as
questioning the legitimacy of the debts alleged in the SOR.  However, there is no basis in the record
to question the legitimacy of the debts.  To the contrary, the record contains substantial evidence of
five delinquent debts whose total amount exceeds $109,000.  There is no reason to believe that either
the SOR or the record materially overstate extent of Applicant’s indebtedness, and there is
insufficient evidence to explain why Applicant amassed debts of such a magnitude.  Under the
circumstances, Applicant’s uncorroborated claims to have been seeking debt validation are not
sufficient to demonstrate a track record of responsible action.    
Applicant contends that he has no privity of contract with agencies that had purchased his
debts from some of the original creditors.   He also argues that the security concerns in his case were
mitigated by the operation of the statute of limitations.  However, these arguments do not
demonstrate that the Judge erred.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-07554 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).
Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable. 
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board