KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has over $15,000 of delinquent consumer debt.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-11903.a1
DATE: 04/07/2008
DATE: April 7, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-11903
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 July 10, 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
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
2
requested a hearing.  On December 11, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M.
Matchinski 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in her application
of the relevant Guideline F mitigating factors.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant has over $15,000 worth of delinquent consumer debt, most
of it incurred during or before 2003.  Although Applicant’s problems were affected by a marital
separation, and although she has made efforts to pay off some of her debts, the Judge concluded that
Applicant has difficulty living within her means.  The Judge stated that Applicant’s financial
problems appear to be ongoing and that her recent efforts to resolve her debts are not sufficient to
outweigh the security concerns arising therefrom.  The Judge noted that even if Applicant succeeded
in reducing monthly expenditures by $250, “she would still need to rely on financial help from
friends and/or family that has yet to materialize.”  Decision at 8.   
The Judge’s has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found” and her ultimate
adverse security clearance 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)). 
The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue
a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record.  See Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  
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
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board