KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant’s financial problems were due to
cause beyond his control and that Applicant had responded reasonably.  The Judge’s adverse
conclusions did follow from those findings.  Adverse decision reversed.
CASENO: 06-25584.a1
DATE: 04/04/2008
DATE: April 4, 2008
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25584
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Nan Cohan Jacobs, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 20, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
Applicant testified that he had paid down this debt to under $2,000.00.  Tr. at 53.  1
2
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
requested a hearing.  On December 13, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H.
Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant
to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding error, we reverse.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Factual Findings
A.  Facts
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 41-year-old employee
of a Defense contractor.  Applicant has numerous unresolved debts, two of which exceed $8,000.00
each.  Applicant’s wife suffers from a debilitating disease, resulting in 12 medical procedures.  As
a consequence, Applicant’s wife experienced unemployment, as did Applicant while he took care
of her.  Applicant’s wife was a contract employee.  Because of her inability to work during her
medical treatment, her medical insurance was retroactively cancelled, resulting in unindemnified
medical expenses of approximately $250,000.00.   1
B.  Discussion
The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of facts is limited to determining if they
are supported by substantial evidence–“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”
Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative
agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime
Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966).  In evaluating the Judge’s findings, we are required to give
deference to the Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. 
Applicant has not challenged the Judge’s findings.  Therefore, they are not at issue in this
appeal.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Ultimate Conclusions
 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.’”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
Directive ¶ E2.20(b).  “[T]he conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s2
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances . . .”  
Directive ¶ E2.20(d).  “[T]he individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise3
resolve debts . . .”  The Judge’s identification of this as subparagraph (e) is error. 
Decision at 6.   4
3
(1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  “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).  The Appeal
Board may reverse the Judge’s decision to grant, deny, or revoke a security clearance if it is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.  
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong
presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After the government presentsth
evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish any appropriate
mitigating conditions.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  “The application of disqualifying and mitigating
conditions and whole person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply
to the particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion
in light of the record evidence as a whole.”  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03635 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec.
20, 2006).
In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board
will review the Judge's decision to determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails
to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of
judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision
that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere
difference of opinion.  In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law,
the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the
Directive, or other applicable federal law.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2,
2006).
In this case the Judge properly found that Applicant’s financial situation raised security
concerns under Guideline F.  As a consequence, he went on to examine possible mitigating
conditions.  He stated, “I find that MC 20. (b)  applies because the conditions that resulted in the2
financial problem of Applicant were largely beyond his control . . . and Applicant has acted
responsibly under the circumstances.  MC 20. (e)  could be argued to also apply, as Applicant has3
initiated a good-faith effort to repay the creditors.”   The Judge went on to conclude, however, that4
Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation, in view of the amount of
overdue debt he still carries and the length of time it will take to pay it off.
4
 Applicant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the Judge’s decision is persuasive.  The
Judge found that Applicant’s case satisfied the criteria of MC 20(b), in that Applicant’s financial
problems were due to causes largely beyond his control and that his response to those problems had
been reasonable.  That finding is sustainable.  Having so found, it is inconsistent for the Judge then
to conclude that Applicant had nevertheless failed in meeting his burden of persuasion as to
mitigation.  The decision does not explain why, under the facts of this case, if Applicant had been
reasonable in addressing problems rooted in causes beyond his control, the mere fact that it might
take him a long time to complete the process was a reason to deny him a clearance.  Applicant
reasonably argues that the Judge’s decision does not take into account substantial contrary record
evidence.  For example, Applicant had paid down his wife’s $250,000.00 in medical debts.
Applicant’s discharge of that enormous debt underscores the reasonableness of his actions with
regard to the debt and undermines  the Judge’s rationale for denying him a clearance under Guideline
F by demonstrating that Applicant is not lacking in self-control or good judgment.  Under the facts
of this case, the Judge’s decision fails to draw a rational connection between his finding that MC
20(b) has been established and his conclusion that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that his
security concerns have been  mitigated.  The Judge’s decision runs contrary to the record evidence.
See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is
not sustainable.  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is REVERSED.  
Signed: Michael D. Hipple             
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board