KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge explicitly discussed the mitigating evidence which applicant asserts was not
considered.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-10695.a1
DATE: 01/24/2014
 
DATE: January 24, 2014
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-10695
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Richard L. Morris, Esq.
The Department of Defense  (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 12, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
2
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 October 15, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative
Judge Marc E. Curry 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all the
evidence; whether the Judge properly applied the mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s
whole person analysis is sufficient.  For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Judge’s
adverse security clearance decision.
The Judge noted that Applicant, a mother of three, admitted to incurring $8,000 of delinquent
debt cited in the SOR, while denying the remaining $5000 of alleged delinquent debt.  The Judge
also discussed her military service, her contentions that her ex-husband, a drug addict, was
responsible for much of her debt, her successful challenges to some debts, and the lack of
corroboration for her explanations of other debts.
 
The Judge discussed the mitigating conditions and concluded that three of them applied in
part or in full. The Judge discussed the mitigating evidence and found for Applicant on several of
the debts alleged in the SOR.  However, the Judge concluded that the lack of documentation in
support of some of her claims of debt payment or debt dispute resolution was too significant given
the number of debts “with statuses that are unverified or unresolved.”  Decision at 7.
A judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence unless he specifically states
otherwise. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009). In this case, the Judge
explicitly discussed the evidence which  applicant asserts was not considered.  Therefore, Applicant
has not demonstrated error.
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. 12-11097 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 20, 2013).  In this case the Judge discussed and
applied three mitigating conditions in part or in full.  He articulated a rational reason to conclude
that Applicant had not mitigated the entirety of the government’s security concerns.  The Judge’s
rationale is sustainable on this record.  Although the whole person analysis was brief, Applicant has
not demonstrated that it was erroneous.
A review of the record indicates that the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by
Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying circumstances and considered the
possible application of relevant conditions and factors.  He reasonably explained why the mitigating
evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns.  The Board does not
3
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.  Accordingly, 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.
Order
The decision of the Judge 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: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board