KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has a lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 10-08308.a1
DATE: 11/03/2011
DATE: November 3, 2011
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-08308
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 March 10, 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
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On August 25, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H.
Leonard 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 contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because it was
arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law for the Judge to conclude that it was too soon to tell if
Applicant’s pending Chapter 7 bankruptcy case would be the end of his financial problems.
Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred in reaching his adverse decision.
  
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The presence of some mitigating evidence
does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.  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 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. 08-07753 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb.
25, 2011).
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial
obligations.  At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant still had significant
outstanding debts, and was still trying to resolve his financial problems.  He had only recently
sought protection under the bankruptcy laws, and his Chapter 7 case was still pending.  In light of
the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still
ongoing.  Id.  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.  He reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to
overcome 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 the 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).  The Judge’s unfavorable
security clearance decision is sustainable.
3
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
Signed: Jean E. Smallin          
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board