KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence.  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.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-02294.a1
DATE: 05/23/2018
DATE: May 23, 2018
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02294
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 July
10, 2017, 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 March 5, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge
Candace Le’i Garcia denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: 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 and Analysis
Applicant retired from the U.S. military after 20 years of service and retired again from the 
Federal Government after 18 years of public service.  Since then, he has experienced periods of
unemployment, including since 2014.  The SOR alleged that Applicant had two judgments totaling
about $35,000 and two past-due consumer accounts totaling about $4,000.  Credit reports verify
these debts.  He stated he was in the process of disputing one debt, but the documents he provided
had a different account number than the alleged debt.  He stated that he communicated with the other
creditors and intended to enroll those debts in a debt relief program once he obtained employment. 
While Applicant’s periods of employment constitute conditions beyond his control, he failed
to show that he acted responsibly under the circumstances.  He did not provide documentation to
show that he paid or otherwise resolved the alleged debts.  There is insufficient evidence to conclude
that his financial problems are unlikely to recur, and they continue to cast doubt on his current
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. 
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant states that he paid his debts in a timely manner while he was
employed.  He argues that his unemployment caused his financial problems and that he has not
disregarded his debts, noting that he contacted the creditors and explained his situation to them.  He
also notes that the lack of a security clearance has hindered him in obtaining a job.  He further
argues that, over the course of his 40-year career, he has been known for honesty and integrity.   
Applicant arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. 
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. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jun. 27, 2016).
2
Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision.  The Judge examined
the relevant evidence 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. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Encl. 2, App A. ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt concerning personnel
being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale          
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3