KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:  The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable security clearance decision.  An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of
evidence, or 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.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO:  15-04640.a1
DATE:  01/24/2017
DATE:  January 24, 2017
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04640
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
January 29, 2016, 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 October 19, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings of fact
contained error and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact 
The SOR alleged five delinquent debts.  Applicant admitted each of the five allegations.  The
Judge found  in favor of Applicant on two allegations and they are not at issue on appeal.  Two other
allegations relate to the foreclosure on Applicant’s home and the resulting indebtedness exceeding
$40,000 which he attributes to his separation and subsequent divorce from his first wife.  The final
allegation involves a delinquent medical debt.    
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant experienced financial hardship in 2007 when he and his first wife separated, and
the cost of maintaining two households became unaffordable.  However, Applicant had other
priorities besides paying his bills.  Applicant took a vacation when he could have used the funds to
make mortgage payments.  Applicant allowed his house to be foreclosed upon in 2010; the second
mortgage on it sill remains outstanding because he cannot afford to pay it; and he is waiting for the
debt to drop off his credit report.  The Judge found that Applicant’s history of excessive debt without
sufficient mitigation demonstrates a pattern of unreliability.  Applicant’s financial situation is tight
even without addressing his delinquent debts.  The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to
establish that he is financially responsible.   
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge should have found his security concerns mitigated.  He
states that the conditions that led to his financial difficulties were his divorce and the subsequent
collapse of the housing market.  He states that these conditions were largely out of his control.  He
states that he tried to work with the mortgage company to refinance his loan or come up with other
options.  However, he states that after not reaching any agreement, his only option was foreclosure.
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. 11-11455 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 4,
2014).  An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of evidence, or 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).         
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in her finding of fact with regard to the status of a debt
in the amount of $442.00 listed under subparagraph 1.d. of the SOR.  Applicant asserted at the
hearing and asserts on appeal that he has made two payments of $100.00 to the creditor for this debt. 
At the hearing, he provided evidence in the form of his bank statement that he made these two
payments.  The Judge references the bank statement submitted into evidence by Applicant, and
states  “Applicant states that as of May 31, 2016, the balance has increased to $2,506.28.”  Decision
at 3. Applicant correctly points out that the bank statement reflects his checking account balance as
$2,506.28, after making the two $100.00 payments.  The $2,506.28 is not the amount he owes on
the debt.  Applicant Exhibit (AE) C.  Given this evidence, there is no basis for the Judge to conclude
that Applicant’s debt increased from $442.00 to $2,506.28.  However, Applicant’s debt is still
outstanding.  Although the allegation involves a debt of $442.00, Applicant’s total delinquent debt
exceeds $40,000.00.  Thus, this error would not reasonably be likely to change the outcome of the
case, given the extent of the total debt. The Board concludes that considering the entire record, this
error is harmless.  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “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.C. 518, 528 (1988).
Order 
The Decision is AFFIRMED.     
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed:  William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
  Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  Catherine M. Engstrom   
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board