KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant states that he “cannot point out any factual errors that have been made by
the Administrative Judge” but “ask[s] that more weight be taken in considering [his] work record
for nearly 34 years.”  The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the
appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  It does not review a case de
novo.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01937.a1
DATE: 01/16/2018
DATE: January 16, 2018
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01937
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 10, 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 decision
on the written record.  On October 19, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and filed only a one-page
narrative response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The Judge based her
adverse decision  in large measure on the lack of documentation to substantiate his assertion that he
has been working to resolve his delinquent debts.1  Decision at 9-10.  On appeal, Applicant offers
new evidence in the form of medical treatment and billing documents.  The Board cannot consider
this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
In his appeal brief Applicant states that he “cannot point out any factual errors that have been
made by the Administrative Judge” but “ask[s] that more weight be taken in considering [his] work
record for nearly 34 years.”  The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the
appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  It does not review a case de novo. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08349 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2017). 
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. 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017).
In reaching her adverse decision, the Judge specifically noted that “Applicant’s many years
of service, primarily as a civilian contractor on behalf of the military, weighs in his favor.”  Decision
at 10.  However, she also noted that: “In choosing a decision on the written record, it was incumbent
on Applicant to present the income and expense information to explain his delinquencies, but also
to reflect his financial stability.  His evidence falls short of meeting his burden of overcoming the
financial considerations security concerns.”  Id.   After reviewing the record, the Board concludes
that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her decision. 
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the
1“He provided no documentation showing ongoing payments and so it cannot be determined whether he has
made enough progress to conclude that his debts are likely to be resolved in the near future.”  Decision at 9.
interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
Therefore, the Judge’s 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: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board