KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge has articulated a satisfactory explanation for his conclusions.  Favorable
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-01979.a1
DATE: 04/09/2008
DATE: April 9, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01979
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 18, 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
requested a decision on the written record.  On December 20, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative
Judge Claude R. Heiny granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel
filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in
concluding that Applicant’s credit reports were insufficient to meet the Government’s burden of
proof as to debt cited in the SOR; whether the Judge’s application of the Financial Considerations
Mitigating Conditions (FCMC) is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law; and whether the Judge’s
whole-person analysis is unsupported by the totality of the record evidence.  Finding no error, we
affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had two debts, as alleged in the SOR.  One, for $11,832.000,
was for a credit card.  Applicant settled this debt and currently has a zero balance with the creditor.
A credit bureau report from February 2006 lists two accounts with the creditor in question, although
three subsequent credit reports, including the most recent, do not list any monies owed to the
creditor.  
The second debt alleged in the SOR arose from an automobile accident.  Applicant had
totaled the car, owing $7,000 on her loan.  The insurance company offered her only salvage value,
despite the car having a book value of $7,000.  Applicant did not accept the offer of salvage value
and assumed the insurance company had then paid off the full value of the car.  Years later, she
discovered that the insurance company had not paid off the balance of the car loan and that her credit
report showed a charged-off debt of $4,306.
As regards the first assignment of error, the Board concludes that, despite some language that
would appear to suggest the opposite, the Judge has determined that the Government met its burden
of production.  Accordingly, his discussion of Applicant’s credit reports occurred in the context of
evaluating the applicability of the possible mitigating conditions.  Furthermore, the Board has
examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole.  The Judge has articulated “a
satisfactory explanation for [his] conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts
found” and his ultimate decision, both as to the application of Guideline F mitigating conditions and
the whole-person analysis.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  The record
supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has met her burden of persuasion that it is “clearly
consistent with the interests of the national security” for her to have a clearance.  See Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  “The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision
in order to find it sustainable.”  ISCR Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. November 2, 2007).
Accordingly, the Board concludes that the Judge’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law. 
3
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board