KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: 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. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03911.a1
DATE: 07/21/2017
DATE: July 21, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03911
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 17, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On May 5, 2017, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant admitted to all the allegations in the SOR.  He requested that his case be decided
on the written record and did not respond to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). 
On appeal Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because his
financial problems occurred a long time ago and never affected his good judgement.  Applicant’s
argument does not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
  
Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the
applicant to establish mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  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. 15-01652 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul.
7, 2017).
In reaching his adverse decision under Guideline F, the Judge noted that Applicant’s
delinquent debts were “numerous, recent, and were not incurred under circumstances making them
unlikely to recur.” Decision at 5.  While they may have been due to circumstances beyond his
control, Applicant had not acted responsibly.  Moreover, he had “presented no evidence of
counseling, payments, payment agreements, or grounds for disputing any of the debts, even though
he ha[d] been employed since January 2011.”  Id.  Based on the record that was before him, the
Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not mitigated the government’s security concerns under
Guideline F was sustainable.
The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  Moreover, Applicant has not challenged the Judge’s adverse decision as to the Guideline
E allegations.  “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).  
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan           
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board