KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s explanation follows rationally from his findings of fact.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 07-02411.a1
DATE: 05/05/2008
DATE: May 5, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-02411
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Annie P. Briscoe, Esq.
For example, the Judge considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 20(b), which mitigates1
security concerns when the financial problems arose from causes outside the applicant’s control.  The Judge concluded
that Applicant’s having voluntarily left the Air Force following an incident of DUI is not a matter that was outside his
control, and Applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing his debts.  Decision at 4.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 11,  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 hearing.  On January 18, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry
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 the Judge erred in his application
of the Guideline F mitigating conditions; whether the Judge’s whole person analysis is erroneous;
and whether the Judge used the proper standard in deciding Applicant’s case.  Finding no error, we
affirm.
The Judge made the following findings of fact:  Applicant is a high school graduate who has
taken some college courses over the years.  He is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, having served from
1991 through his honorable discharge in 2004.  His decision to leave the Air Force was prompted
by a 2003 driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) conviction.  Shortly after leaving the Air
Force, Applicant began struggling financially. 
By late 2006, he had accrued approximately $40,000 of delinquent debt, including among
other things, $1,300 in delinquent court fines stemming from the 2003 DUI, $3,700 in delinquent
child support payments, $3,500 in eviction and miscellaneous property rental dispute fees, $25,000
on two delinquent car notes, and $2,100 in delinquencies related to a time-share property purchased
before he left the Air Force.  Applicant provided no documentation to support his claim that he was
making efforts to pay off his debts.  He has never attended debt counseling, and all of the
delinquencies remain outstanding.
The Board has considered Applicant’s claims of error.  The Judge utilized the correct
standard in evaluating Applicant’s case.  Furthermore, the Judge’s decision articulates “a satisfactory
explanation for [his] conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found” and his
adverse decision, both as to the application of Guideline F mitigating conditions as well as the
whole-person analysis.   See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  The record1
supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has not met his burden of persuasion that it is “clearly
consistent with the national interest” for him to have a clearance.  Decision at 5.  See Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988); Directive ¶ E3.1.25.  Accordingly, the Board
concludes that the Judge’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
3
 
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
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board