KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: There is a rebuttable presumption that a has considered all the evidence in the record. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-24674.a1
DATE: 04/10/2008
DATE: April 10, 2008
In Re:
-----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24674
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
 The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On April 11, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On October 30, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge did not receive or did not
consider the additional materials he provided when the record was held open for that purpose.
Finding no error, we affirm.  
At the time of the hearing, record evidence indicated that Applicant was indebted to seven
creditors for a total amount exceeding $17,000.  Applicant testified that he had paid off one small
debt and had mailed a check to pay another small debt three days before the hearing, but provided
no corroborating evidence.  Applicant had done little else to settle his debts.  Applicant testified that
he was unaware that he had debts that were delinquent by 180 or 90 days when he filled out his
security clearance application and therefore did not deliberately falsify the application.  The Judge
held the record open for three weeks for Applicant to submit further information about his attempts
to satisfy his debts, and Applicant submitted documents twice during that period.
Applicant’s post-hearing submissions are contained in the record.  There is a rebuttable
presumption that a Judge has considered all the evidence in the record before her unless she
specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2001).
Moreover, the Judge stated in her decision that Applicant submitted materials after the hearing, and
she set out the terms of an agreement that Applicant entered into which was part of the post-trial
materials.  See Decision at 2 and 3. 
It is clear that the Judge received the materials Applicant submitted and considered them in
reaching her decision.  The fact that she did not accord them the weight Applicant would have
accorded them is not indicative of error on the part of the Judge.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-01659
at 2 (Feb. 22, 2008).  Given the record that was before her, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security
clearance decision is sustainable.  
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
                                                                        
                                                                                    Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
                                    Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin             
3
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board