KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Applicant’s significant
outstanding debts supported the Judge’s conclusion that the debts were ongoing.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 12-11097.a1
DATE: 06/20/2013
DATE: June 20, 2013
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
 
ISCR Case No. 12-11097
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 27, 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).  On December 11,
2012, DoD issued an addendum to the SOR adding two additional allegations under Guideline F,
and five allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
March 29, 2013, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
1Applicant’s brief states that he “needed more time.”  The Board notes that at the hearing he stated that he
was ready to proceed (Tr. at 6-7), and the Judge accepted additional documents from Applicant about six weeks after
the hearing.
2
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 the
evidence  was sufficient to establish that he had been making reasonable efforts to resolve his
financial problems.  As part of his submission on appeal, he offers new evidence in the form of
documents and a narrative statement that explain the current status of his debts and his continuing
actions to resolve them.  The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶
E3.1.29.
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. 10-08308 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2011).
In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial
obligations, including substantial unpaid debts for state and Federal tax liens, and past-due mortgage
payments.  Decision at 2-5.  Although Applicant had made some efforts to resolve his financial
problems, the Judge noted that those efforts had only started recently and in some instances only
involved token payments. Id. At 7-8.  At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant still
had significant outstanding debts and was still trying to resolve his financial problems.1  In light of
the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that those problems were still ongoing.   See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-01209 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 28, 2011).  
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 found in favor of Applicant with respect to some of the allegations, but
reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome all of the
government’s security concerns.  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.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge
examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision.  “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 unfavorable security clearance decision under is sustainable.
3
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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