KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A party’s ability to argue for a different interpretation of the record evidence is not
sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed in the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Once the Government presents evidence of security concern, the
burden of persuasion shifts to the applicant.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 11-05490.a1
DATE: 11/14/2012
DATE: November 14, 2012
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-05490
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 21, 2012, 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 August 10, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge James F. Duffy
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
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 42 years old.  The SOR alleged
that Applicant had 20 delinquent debts totaling $598,395.  In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant
denied three debts totaling about $280,000.  He admitted the remaining debts totaling $318,395.
After a career in the military, Applicant became a real estate agent.  In 2005, he purchased four
properties totaling about $787,000.  These include the home he currently lives in and a home for his
parents in another city.  
In the beginning, Applicant’s real estate business was successful.  However, the real estate
market started to decline.  Applicant’s income, based on commissions, followed suit.  He had
difficulty renting his investment properties.  His mother died in 2008 and he was saddled with the
funeral expenses.  He had to give up his position as a military reservist in April 2008 when his
security clearance was revoked due to financial problems.  In 2009 his wife required knee
replacement surgery .  Applicant fell behind on child support payments from his first marriage, and
his real estate license was suspended in February 2010 because of those arrearages.
Applicant acknowledged that he has not had financial counseling.  He estimated that his
wife’s income was about $27,000 in 2011.  In January 2012, he submitted a personal financial
statement that reflected his net monthly income was $1,701 and his total monthly expenses were
$1,980, which left him with a negative net monthly remainder.
The Judge reached the following conclusions:  Applicant has multiple delinquent debts that
remain unresolved.  His financial problems are ongoing, significant, and cast doubt on his current
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  The downturn in the housing market, his wife’s and
his stepson’s medical problems, and the passing of his mother were conditions beyond his control.
However, for his financial difficulties to be fully mitigated, responsible conduct must be established.
Of concern here are Applicant’s financial commitments in 2005.  During that year he purchased four
properties totaling about $787,000, two vehicles totaling over $50,000, and an ATV for about
$6,725.  He also obtained a homeowner’s equity line of credit of over $50,000.  Those significant
financial commitments over that short period of time raise questions about his judgment.  He failed
to show that he took meaningful action to address the delinquent debts prior to the suspension of his
real estate license or the revocation of his security clearance.  Applicant’s financial situation remains
unstable.  He has not produced documentation showing regular payments towards his delinquent
debts.  He failed to produce a realistic plan for addressing them.
Applicant asserts that his financial troubles and derelictions are mitigated.  His appeal brief
is comprised principally of a reiteration of facts concerning his circumstances that were presented
below.  Additionally, the brief contains factual assertions that are not part of the record below.  The
Board cannot consider new evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
3
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  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.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007).
Applicant’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 made sustainable findings that Applicant had a lengthy and serious
history of not meeting financial obligations and had made numerous choices regarding his finances
that reflected questionable judgment.  Central to the Judge’s analysis was his conclusion that
Applicant took on massive financial commitments in 2005 that greatly exceeded the resources
available to him.  The Judge also concluded that Applicant did not reasonably address these
commitments while he still had some financial means to do so.  These conclusions are supported by
the record.  The Judge adequately discussed why, given these factors, the disqualifying conduct
established under Guideline F 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
his 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.
4
Order
The Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Member, 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