KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: 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 harmful error. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-00786.a1
DATE: 01/12/2012
DATE: January 12, 2012
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-00786
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 15, 2011, 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 that the case be decided on the written record.  On October 26, 2011, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 37 years old, a high school
graduate and single.  Applicant’s SOR alleges 12 delinquent accounts with an approximate total
balance of $ 22, 089. Applicant has paid three debts worth $172.  He recently executed a repayment
plan for six debts worth $11,891.  He did not provide evidence of initial payments under the plan.
He asserted that three debts worth in excess of $10,000 are duplicate but failed to provide
corroborating evidence.  He has not obtained credit counseling. He did not provide any reference
letters or copies of his performance evaluations for consideration of his trustworthiness, good
judgment or reliability.
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant’s financial situation continues to
cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  He provided some  evidence that
the financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond his control but he did not demonstrate
that he behaved responsibly under the circumstances.  Applicant’s financial difficulties are ongoing
and not isolated.  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.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains several documents which were not submitted to the
Administrative Judge.  These constitute new evidence, which the Board cannot consider.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
The Board interprets the remaining portions of Applicant’s brief as assertions of fact in
support of a case for mitigation.  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. 10-07138 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2011).  
In this case, the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the
seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and applied relevant conditions.  She explained why the
disqualifying conduct established under Guideline F was not sufficiently mitigated.  
3
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 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: William S. Fields                   
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board