KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: A Judge’s findings must be based on substantial record evidence.  There is a rebuttable
presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-07247.a1
DATE: 02/13/2008
DATE: February 13, 2008
In Re:
-------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-07247
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 11, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
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 September 28,
2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Christopher Graham denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30. 
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s factual
findings were based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts and that he had not
corroborated his claim to have begun paying them off earlier than 2007.  The Judge also found that
Applicant answered “no” to Question 37 of a Security Clearance Application completed in March
2005, which asked if he had had any judgements against him in the previous seven years.  The Judge
found that this answer was untrue, insofar as a creditor had obtained a judgement against Applicant
in May 2003, and Applicant was aware of this at the time he completed the application.
A Judge’s  findings must be based upon substantial record evidence.  Directive  ¶  E3.1.32.1;
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966).  We have examined the
Judge’s findings in light of the record and conclude that even if there are errors, they are harmless
in that they are minor and would not reasonably have affected the outcome of the case.  See ISCR
Case No. 01-23362 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006).  Furthermore, we conclude that the Judge’s decision
that Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline F security concerns is sustainable on this record.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.15 (“The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant and proven by Department
Counsel and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”)
On appeal, Applicant claims the Judge did not consider evidence contained in his written
submissions.  There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge has considered all the record evidence.
See ISCR Case No. 01-03357 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 13, 2005).  Applicant fails to rebut that
presumption.  In light of the forgoing, we do not need to address the Guideline E concerns.
Order 
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett       
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board