KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant had delinquent debts in excess of $152,000.  The Judge’s decision is not
arbitrary , capricious, nor contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-02417.a1
DATE: 02/05/2008
DATE: February 5, 2008
In Re:
-----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-02417
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 May 4, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On September 27, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C.
Wesley 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 findings were
not based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had attempted to develop technology for
the detection of explosive devices.  He decided to finance this development through the use of his
credit card.  At the time of the decision, Applicant had delinquent debts in excess of $152,000, most
of which were for cash withdrawals on the credit card.  Other debts, however, pertained to student
loans taken out to finance his wife’s education.  The Judge noted that Applicant’s few assets make
a debt consolidation loan impracticable.  In his Conclusions section, the Judge stated that Applicant
had failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial problems, “[t]aking into
account all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Applicant’s debt accumulations and lack of
concrete steps taken to date to resolve them . . .”  Decision at 8.  Applicant challenges several of the
Judge’s findings of fact or descriptions of Applicant’s circumstances.  The bulk of Applicant’s
claims are not material to the issues to be adjudicated in the case.
Evaluating the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge
has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found” and his ultimate adverse decision.  See
ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the
United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck
Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). (A Judge is required to “examine the relevant
data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for” the decision, “including a ‘rational connection
between the facts found and the choices made’”).  “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).  Accordingly, we hold that this decision is neither arbitrary,
capricious, nor contrary to law.  See Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board