WPCz  /&sdξם^=hmCW۳%x_趽8%6KLp%=O'C{*Yt {(}IEgf2#RC(8fsp ' +vHf&*S_ ഖU x |oy3k3n넳p uAQ.WS3pCGWVGБEIrF:,7P!1l^~Rʈ<|dk>exŕl7"g"&lq?zz{ԜgBڈs #y\)c`$$A3|ֹׂz;OF+"*Fux ,$~d,Rpxe IS9=4[b gӧMlaMϬ(RppT,#s`"7~C`Q^l S+2?B?Qb'-{mďsC]% xDʒṭS `#@UN %W 0:] Z ^ w 4  $ m& E= Z? 0~ 0D  N[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ B] Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE~K;EJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:Oncethegovernmentpresentsevidenceraisingsecurityconcerns,theburdenshiftsto  theapplicanttoestablishmitigation.Applicanthadnotsoughtfinancialcounselingand [_n]o_ t informationwasprovidedregardingthecurrentstatusofthe_SOR_Ԁdebtsorhercurrentfinancial ` condition.Adversedecisionaffirmed. L  _CASENO_:1508130.a1 $ t DATE:08/03/2017  L  __8<XXdd8__________   `     h      p DATE:_August3,2017_ $  .؉7r(#(#.A_ ) xdEgA   InRe:    _Ԅ_    W   ApplicantforSecurityClearance k A_ ) xdEgA C  R )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H   4! pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1508130 H$  4% .؉7r. \XXp   *%    APPEALBOARDDECISION ) APPEARANCES N",  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  &$v. JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel $N /  FORAPPLICANT  &!1  Prose #X<X%&3# '"2 __    TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnJune 4*%5 14,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat  +p&6 decision"securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof  ,\'7 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision  onthewrittenrecord.OnMay31,2017,aftertheconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeof  HearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeGreggA._Cervi_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequest  forasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttotheDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. t   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadverseclearance L  decisionisarbitrary,capriciousorcontrarytolaw. 8    ApplicantarguesthattheJudgesadversedecisionshouldbereversedbecauseherdebtswere  ` theresultofcircumstancesbeyondhercontrol(e.g.,medicalproblemsandunemployment),andshe  L  hasanexcellentemploymentrecordandhasheldaclearancefor20yearswithoutincident.Inthe  8  alternative,sheasksthattheBoardgrantherawaiverorconditionalclearance.TheBoarddoesnot $  haveauthoritytograntwaivers,orinterim,conditionalorprobationaryclearances.See,e.g.,_ISCR_   CaseNo.1404289at2(App.Bd.Sep.9,2015).Applicantsargumentdoesnotdemonstratethat   theJudgesdecisionisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.     Oncethegovernmentpresentsevidenceraisingsecurityconcerns,theburdenshiftstothe p applicanttoestablishmitigation.DirectiveE3.1.15.Thepresenceofsomemitigatingevidence \ doesnotalonecompeltheJudgetomakeafavorablesecurityclearancedecision.Asthetrieroffact, H theJudgehastoweightheevidenceasawholeanddecidewhetherthefavorableevidenceoutweighs 4 theunfavorableevidence,orviceversa.ApartysdisagreementwiththeJudgesweighingofthe  p evidence,oranabilitytoargueforadifferentinterpretationoftheevidence,isnotsufficientto  \ demonstratetheJudgeweighedtheevidenceorreachedconclusionsinamannerthatisarbitrary, H capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501652at2(App.Bd.Jul.7,2017). 4   Applicantelectedtohavehercasedecidedonthewrittenrecord,andthendidnotrespond   tothegovernmentsFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM).Basedontherecordthatwasbeforehim,  theJudgefoundApplicanthadtendelinquentconsumerandmedicaldebtstotalingapproximately  $23,000.InreachinghisadversedecisionhespecificallyconsideredthefactthatApplicanthad  successfullyworkedfor_morethan_Ԁ20yearssupportingtheDepartmentofDefenseasanemployee l orcontractorandhadincurredmedicaldebtswhileunemployed.However,healsonotedshehad X  notsoughtfinancialcounselingand [_n]o_Ԁinformationwasprovidedregardingthecurrentstatusof D! the_SOR_Ԁdebtsorhercurrentfinancialcondition.Decisionat2.Inlightoftheforegoing,the 0"  Judgesconclusionthat Applicanthasnotshownthatherfinancialproblemsarebeingresolved #l! orareundercontrolissustainable.Id.at5. $X"   TheBoarddoesnotreviewacasedenovo.ThefavorableevidencecitedbyApplicantisnot %0!$ sufficienttodemonstratetheJudgesdecisionunderGuidelineFisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrary &"% tolaw. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwith '#& theinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988). (#'  h+&* Ї@( Order  `     ThedecisionisAFFIRMED. 8     `     h   _Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ_______ $     `     h   _Michael__._Ԁ__Raanan_      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy 4    `     h   JamesF.Duffy  p    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  \    `     h   Member,AppealBoard H    `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields__     `     h   WilliamS.Fields     `     h   AdministrativeJudge l    `     h   Member,AppealBoard  ____ X