KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The record does not support a conclusion that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-03623.a1
DATE: 07/25/2012
DATE: July 25, 2012
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-03623
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 January 13, 2012, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(a): “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment[.]”  
2
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 decision on the written record.  On May 31, 2012, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we
affirm the decision of the Judge.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a systems engineer for
a Defense contractor.  He served in the U.S. military for 18 months.  He attended college, receiving
a bachelor’s degree in 1977.  Although the record is silent as to his employment status between 1977
and 1998, he has held a security clearance since 1987.
Applicant purchased a house, taking out two mortgages and making no down payment.  He
took out a third mortgage in order to finance the construction of a swimming pool at his house.  The
total amount of the mortgages was $450,000.  His monthly mortgage payment was $3,650.  Over
time, the value of his house decreased to $220,000, leaving him with no equity.  He had the ability
to continue making his mortgage payments.  However, the negative equity impaired his ability to
retire in 3 to 4 years, as he had hoped to do.  
Applicant consulted with two attorneys, who advised him that he earned too much money
for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and that his monthly payments under Chapter 13 would be
$7,600.  Therefore, Applicant decided to default on his mortgage payments, in hopes that he could
work with his lenders to reduce both the principal owed and his monthly payments.  Merely reducing
his monthly payments would not increase his equity in the house.  He stopped making mortgage
payments in July 2010.  He was eventually advised, however, that he did not qualify for loan
modification.  Applicant permitted the three mortgages to go into foreclosure.   
At the end of 2010, Applicant earned an annual salary of $117,000, and his wife earned one
of $65,000.  He submitted no evidence to corroborate his claims that he was paying off all accounts
that he had intended to resolve in bankruptcy, including credit cards, car loans, and student loans.
There is no evidence in the record of financial counseling.
In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems were neither
attenuated by the passage of time nor infrequent.1  He acknowledged that a downturn in the real
estate market had occurred during the past few years, which was beyond Applicant’s control.
However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not explained what impact that downturn had
actually exerted on his ability to address his financial circumstances.  The Judge stated that
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b):   “The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”  
3Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(c): “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and /or there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]”  
4One of the SOR debts was for a mobile home loan account that had been cancelled.  The Judge cited to
evidence that Applicant had sold the home through a short sale and that the lender had cancelled the balance owed on
the loan.  In resolving this debt in Applicant’s favor, the Judge relied on Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d): “the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]”  
3
Applicant had not acted responsibly under the circumstances.2  The Judge also concluded that there
was no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Applicant’s financial problems were being
resolved or were under control.3  He did resolve an SOR debt in Applicant’s favor,4 but he concluded
that Applicant had failed to demonstrate a track record of debt resolution regarding the delinquent
mortgages on his house.
Applicant cites to a decision by another Hearing Office Judge which, he contends, supports
his case for a security clearance.  We give this decision due consideration.  However, Hearing Office
decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 08-09236 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2010).  The case which Applicant cites involves
circumstances underlying the debts, which are significantly different from his own.  Applicant’s
appeal brief includes evidence from outside the record, such as a more recent credit report, a
document showing the final bid on a trustee’s sale of his house, documents showing the declining
assessed value of Applicant’s home over the past few years, etc.  We cannot consider new evidence
on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Much of Applicant’s appeal brief consists of a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of
the evidence.  He cites to his overall history of financial stability, to evidence that he had stopped
making mortgage payments in order to apply (unsuccessfully) for a loan remodification, and to other
things which he believes that the Judge did not examine in their proper context.  However, while the
Judge considered the evidence which Applicant has cited, his decision rested in large measure on
Applicant’s reasons for defaulting on his mortgage payments (which had little to do with the
influence of circumstances outside Applicant’s control), on evidence that Applicant had the financial
capacity to make those payments had he chosen to do so, and on a paucity of record evidence
demonstrating that Applicant’s financial problems were being resolved.  The record does not support
a conclusion that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  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 that 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. 11-04742 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jun. 20, 2012).  
The record supports a conclusion 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.
4
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision 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: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board