KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant had a history of financial problems triggered in part by
an adjusting ARM loan, which caused his mortgage payments to spike to the point that credit
cards were used to meet living expenses.  At the time of the hearing Applicant was still in the
process of trying to obtain a discharge of his debts through a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The Judge
concluded that Applicant’s current financial situation is precarious as shown by a negative
monthly case flow of several hundred dollars.  The Judge reasonably explained why the
mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 11-00421.a1
DATE: 06/15/2012
DATE: June 15, 2012
In Re:
-----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-00421
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, 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 a hearing.  On April 3, 2012, 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 his
indebtedness did not stem from frivolous spending or criminal conduct, he received counseling, he
took reasonable actions to resolve his indebtedness, he is currently debt free, and he has now
received a discharge in bankruptcy.  Part of Applicant’s argument is based upon new evidence which
the Board cannot consider on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  The balance of his 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. 10-08508 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan.
4, 2012).
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a history of financial problems triggered
partially by an adjusting ARM loan, which caused his mortgage to spike to the point where credit
cards were used to meet living expenses.  As a result, Applicant had defaulted on two credit card
debts in the amount of $11,000 and $6,032, both of which had been placed for collection.  At the
time of the hearing Applicant was still in the process of trying to obtain a discharge of those debts
and other debts through a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which he had filed after the issuance of the SOR.
Decision at 2-3.
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 noted Applicant’s receipt of counseling and his efforts to put his financial
house in order.  However, he also noted that: “[Applicant’s] current financial situation is precarious
as shown by a negative monthly cash flow of several hundred dollars.  At this point, there is no
indication of a favorable upward trend upon which to rely, and it is too soon to tell if or when his
financial situation will stabilize.” Decision at 7.  Accordingly, the Judge reasonably explained why
that mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns in light
of the totality of the record evidence.
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.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin             
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board