KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Absent corroboration of Applicant’s claims, the Judge could reasonably conclude the
financial problems were ongoing.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-11660.a1
DATE: 07/09/2014
DATE: July 9, 2014
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-11660
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
March 5, 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 that the case
2
be decided on the written record.  On May 14, 2014, after the close of the record, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
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 made the following findings of fact: Applicant is 31 years old and single.  The
SOR lists 14 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $40,000.  The existence and amounts of these
debts is supported by four credit reports issued between 2011 and 2014.  Applicant denies all the
allegations in the SOR, stating that he has paid or resolved all his debts.  Record evidence
establishes that Applicant has paid four debts.  Two debts are the subject of unresolved disputes.
In the case of eight other debts, the record does not establish that they are resolved.  Regarding these
debts, Applicant’s mere statements of fact that the debts have been paid are insufficient to establish
satisfaction of the debts, given Applicant’s burden to show that the debts have been resolved.  The
unresolved indebtedness totals at least $21,000.
According to Applicant, he got behind in his bills because he had to help his family with
their financial problems beginning in 2006.  He stated he had retained a law firm to help him with
his debts, but he did not submit any documentation indicating the scope of their work, or what they
have accomplished for him.  By his own figures, Applicant is financially well off.  He lives with his
family and has a monthly net remainder of $3,816.  The interrogatory filled out by Applicant
specifically states the types of documentation that would show he had made payments on his debts.
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant’s financial difficulties have been
in existence since at least 2006.  He states that beginning in 2012 he began to take action to resolve
those debts.  However, Applicant did not provide documentation supporting all his statements that
he has made payments to his creditors, despite being informed in writing of what specific evidence
the Government was looking for.  In addition, he did not explain why it took him approximately six
years to begin to pay the debts, when he has been gainfully employed at a good salary for the entire
time.  At the present time, the evidence concerning Applicant’s entire financial situation does not
support a finding that there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control.  There remains serious potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress.  Applicant
has not mitigated the security significance of his financial situation concerning past-due debts.
Applicant describes mitigating circumstances in his case.  He states that he had to assume
the financial responsibility for taking care of his parents when they had medical issues and lacked
insurance.  He asserts that he is now married and has been getting his life back on track.  He states
that he has been paying his bills and the Government’s claim about outstanding delinquent
indebtedness is incorrect.  Applicant has not established error on the part of the Judge.      
In support of his appeal, Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the record,
which the Board cannot consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or
3
considered by the Appeal Board”).  After the Government presents evidence raising security
concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns.  See Directive ¶
E3.1.15.  The Judge found that Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that he
no longer owed numerous debts that were delinquent.  In light of the absence of corroboration of
Applicant’s statements that he had paid his debts, the Judge could reasonably conclude that
Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App.
Bd. Jul. 3, 2007). 
    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. 06-25157 at 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.  The Judge listed the potentially applicable mitigating conditions
and then discussed applicable components of those factors in his analysis.  Applicant has not
demonstrated that the Judge erred when he weighed the mitigating evidence against the seriousness
of the disqualifying conduct. 
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