KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found Applicant was discharged in bankruptcy in 1997 and unpaid tax debt
of $86000 as well as credit card debts.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-04021.a1
DATE: 05/16/2008
DATE: May 16, 2008
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-04021
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR ¶¶ 1 (a) and (b) is not at issue in this appeal.  1
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 22,  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 February 6, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F.
Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal
pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant has raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings
were supported by substantial evidence; and whether the Judge erred in failing to mitigate the
Guideline F security concerns in her case.   Finding no error, we affirm.1
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant was discharged in
Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1997.  The next year, due to her husband’s job loss, Applicant filed for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.  This was subsequently dismissed due to an improvement in
Applicant’s financial situation.  However, Applicant subsequently lost her job and her husband’s
business suffered a downturn.  In addition, Applicant’s husband made accounting mistakes in
preparing their personal and business income tax returns.  
Applicant and her husband got behind in their taxes.  The IRS filed a lien for $30,219 in
March 2005 and a second one for $8,261 in December 2005.  Applicant’s total unpaid tax debt from
2003 to 2006 was $86,000.  Applicant and her husband hired a tax lawyer to assist them in resolving
their debts.  They are seeking to refinance their home and use the equity to pay off part of their IRS
debt and negotiate payment of the balance.  As of the close of the record Applicant has not received
a decision on their proposal from the IRS.
Applicant has six active credit cards and carries a total balance among them of between
$10,000 and $20,000.  Applicant has a savings account with a balance of less than $10,000.  She and
her husband have no other assets other than the family household furnishings.  
The Board has considered Applicant’s brief, the Judge’s decision, and the record.  The
Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence.  See
Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”)  The
Judge properly concluded that Applicant’s case raised security concerns under Guideline F.
Furthermore, the Judge drew a “rational connection between the facts found” and his conclusion that
neither the Guideline F mitigating conditions nor the whole-person factors support a decision
favorable to Applicant.  See 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 reflects that he considered the entire record, including the
evidence favorable to Applicant.  However, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not
3
compel a favorable overall security clearance decision.  See, e. g., ISCR Case No. 05-03452 at 3
(App. Bd. Jul 3, 2007).  The record supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has failed to meet
her burden of persuasion that it is “clearly consistent with the national interest” for her to have a
clearance.  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, 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