KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  A party’s ability to argue
for a different interpretation of the evidence falls short of demonstrating that the Judge’s
treatment of the evidence was erroneous.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASE NO: 12-00703.a1
DATE: 02/27/2014
DATE: February 27, 2014
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-00703
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 June
4, 2013, DoD 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 December 18, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant 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 is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
security clearance decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings: Applicant is 32 years old.  He has delinquent debts
in the amount of $19,000.  Applicant went on a spending spree when he left the military in 2006,
and his civilian job effectively paid less than his military salary because of the non-taxable pay and
allowances he received as part of his military compensation.  His finances were further complicated
when he married his pregnant girlfriend and acquired a stepson along with his own son.  
Applicant engaged debt counseling services and tried to work on his debts on his own, but
little progress was made.  He began making $50 per month payments to some of his creditors in
about November 2012.  Applicant recently received a salary increase, but he has not increased his
debt payments.  He has no retirement account and no savings.  He has received no credit or financial
counseling.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant has yet to resolve his delinquent
debt.  The debt is directly attributable to Applicant’s financial irresponsibility after getting out of
the military.  He cannot be considered to have acted responsibly in addressing his debts because the
debts were due to his own conduct and he did not begin to take effective action until sometime in
2012.  While his recent efforts at repayment show some good faith in attempting to resolve those
debts, with the exception of one debt, the amount of his payments is insufficient to resolve his debts
in the reasonably foreseeable future.  Applicant’s budget provides only minimal payments to his
debts and he has not received financial counseling.  There is no other evidence supporting a
favorable clearance action.    
Discussion
Applicant argues that his clearance should not have been denied.  He states that he was
making monthly payments for all his debts to the best of his ability and was completely honest with
all parties involved with the case.  He states that all of his debts have been settled as of January 8,
2014 as a result of his receipt of a gift of money from his family after the death of his grandfather.
Applicant’s brief and several attachments contain evidence that was not part of the record
below.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  The record in this
case closed on September 6, 2013.
Applicant focuses on his record of making payments on his debts.  The Judge duly
acknowledged these efforts.  However, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone
compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-
3
25157at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2008).  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).  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. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd.
Oct. 12, 2007).  
In this case, the Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had a significant history of
not meeting financial obligations.  He noted that despite some progress, that trend did not begin until
recently and, at the time of the hearing, Applicant still had a significant amount of overdue
indebtedness, with no reasonable prospect of retiring the debt for a number of years.  Applicant has
not demonstrated that the Judge erred when he determined that the government’s concerns over
Applicant’s financial record were unmitigated. 
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
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).  Therefore,
the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
4
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