KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge offered a reasonable explanation as to why the disqualifying conduct was
not mitigated.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03910.a1
DATE: 06/24/2015
DATE: June 24, 2015
In Re:
-------- 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03910
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
October 8, 2014, 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
be decided on the written record.  On March 31, 2015, after the close of the record, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge James F. Duffy 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: Applicant is 49 years old.  Her SOR listed 12
delinquent debts in the amount of $21,000.  Three of the SOR allegations concern the same debt. 
Since 2002, Applicant was employed for three periods totaling about 13 months.  One of the periods
began in 2004 when she left her job because she “needed a break.” Decision at 2.  Only two of
Applicant’s ten listed debts have been resolved.  Applicant did not provide sufficient proof that she
was legitimately disputing debts, had paid debts, or was taking steps to address debts.
 The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant has multiple debts that remain
unresolved.  Her unemployment and accident injuries were the result of conditions beyond her
control and these contributed to her financial problems.  Nonetheless, she failed to establish that she
has acted responsibly under the circumstances in addressing her financial problems.  No evidence
was presented that she attempted to enter into repayment agreements with any creditors.  No
evidence of financial counseling was presented.  The favorable information, including the mitigating
evidence, does not outweigh the security concerns at issue.  Following the “clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard, doubt about granting Applicant a security clearance must be resolved
in favor of national security.
Applicant asserts that incorrect or outdated information in the Government’s “source data”
influenced the Judge’s unfavorable decision.  Her appeal statements are based on information she
submitted for the first time on appeal, and this information is not part of the record below.  The
Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive, ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant argues that the credit report evidence relied on by the Judge was inaccurate.  She
has failed to establish error.  There is no presumption of error below.  Also, it is well settled that
adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and
the government’s obligations under ¶ E3.1.14 of the Directive for pertinent allegations.  At that
point, the burden shifts to Applicant to establish either that she is not responsible for the debt or that
matters in mitigation apply.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010). 
Applicant offered no evidence challenging the accuracy of the credit reports while the record was
open.  
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
2
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). 
  A review of the Judge’s decision reveals that, regarding Guideline F, the Judge listed the
potentially applicable mitigating conditions and then discussed several components of those factors
in his analysis.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to a number of the Guideline F allegations. 
However, the Judge offered a reasonable explanation as to why the disqualifying conduct 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
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.
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan         
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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
3