KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicants are expected to take timely reasonable steps to protect their rights under the
Directive.  Applicant has not shown that he was denied due process.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-07318.a1
DATE: 10/26/2011
DATE: October 26, 2011
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-07318
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 February 22, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On
August 31, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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 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 is 44 years old, a high school
graduate, single, and has no children.  On March 3, 2010, Applicant completed a security clearance
questionnaire wherein he was required to list delinquent debts and other problems in his financial
record.  He answered “no” to each of 15 questions.  Applicant’s security clearance background
investigation revealed 24 delinquent accounts with an approximate total balance of $31,821.  In his
answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that four debts would be paid by June 1, 2011.  He did not
provide corroboration for this assertion.  He claims he formally disputed numerous other debts, but
he did not provide proof that he submitted a formal dispute and he did not provide any results from
the dispute[s].  Applicant asserts that if six of the debts listed in the SOR were actually his debts,
they are uncollectable as the statute of limitations has passed.  Applicant made other assertions
regarding his debts, including an indication that he filed for bankruptcy in 1998, which discharged
three debts listed in the SOR.  He did not provide a copy of his 1998 bankruptcy pleadings.
Applicant admits that his financial problems resulted from living beyond his means.  After his 1998
bankruptcy, Applicant believes that he has a better understanding of financial responsibility.  He
indicates that he did not list his delinquent accounts on his security clearance questionnaire because
he did not have a copy of his credit report with him.  He claims he was not aware of the delinquent
accounts.
Applicant has not provided documentation to verify any of his assertions pertaining to debts
being discharged in his 1998 bankruptcy, debts to be paid, or that he formally disputed the accounts
that he claims do not belong to him.  He did not provide any reference letters or copies of his
performance evaluations for consideration under the whole-person factors.
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant’s financial situation continues to
cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  He provided no evidence that the
financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond his control.  Applicant’s financial situation
is unlikely to be resolved in the near future.  He has only provided proof that he has paid two debts.
He did not provide proof that he took steps to formally dispute the debts whose legitimacy he
questions.  Even if some of Applicant’s debts are legally unenforceable under the state law where
he acquired the debt, the circumstances under which Applicant acquired them remains a security
issue because he owes these debts and refuses to pay them.  Applicant did not provide sufficient
mitigating evidence to establish that he is resolving his delinquent accounts and that he is taking
steps to prevent future financial problems.  Regarding Guideline E, in a security clearance interview
Applicant admitted responsibility for some of the debts that he knew were his but claimed he did not
3
deliberately falsify his security clearance application.  His assertions are not credible based on the
extensive amount of delinquent debt and his history of financial irresponsibility, including a 1998
bankruptcy discharge.  It is unlikely that a reasonable person would forget such debts.  Applicant
intentionally omitted his financial delinquencies from his security clearance questionnaire. 
On appeal, Applicant states that he is aware of the fact that it appears that no evidence was
provided on his behalf.  He attributes this to the fact that mitigating evidence, specifically credit
reports, were not received by him in a timely manner, and he was unable to point out debts that he
disputed or disparities between the government’s evidence and the credit reports.  The record and
case file indicate a copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) was sent to Applicant on May 25,
2011 (receipt is dated June 1, 2011), and he was instructed to file any objections and/or supply
additional information for the Judge’s consideration within 30 days.  Applicant did not submit any
additional material and the case file was forwarded to the Judge on August 2, 2011.  At no time was
any document (regarding procedure or otherwise) received from Applicant.  
Had Applicant felt he had an inadequate amount of time in which to respond, it was
incumbent upon him to make his concerns known.  Applicants are expected to take timely,
reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-15235 at
2 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 2008).  Here, Applicant has not established that he did so in response to a
perceived problem, or that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case.  Applicant
has not shown that he was denied due process.
The Board interprets the remaining portions of Applicant’s brief as assertions of fact in
support of a case for mitigation.  Applicant makes substantive comments about his debts and the
plan he now has in place for addressing the delinquencies.  He states that he was not trying to live
above his means.  Included in his appeal are a number of documents.  These constitute new
evidence, which the Board cannot consider.  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.  She adequately discussed why the disqualifying conduct established under
Guidelines F and E was not mitigated.  
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.’”
4
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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board