KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant had delinquent debts to at least nine different creditors
totaling approximately $52,000 and that Applicant had deliberately falsified a security clearance
application.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-05036.a1
DATE: 05/23/2008
DATE: May 23, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-05036
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
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
2
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 30, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey-Anderson 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had delinquent and outstanding debts to at least nine different
creditors totaling approximately $52,000.  Applicant had been unsuccessful in setting up a debt
repayment plan or obtaining a debt consolidation loan.  At the time of hearing, he had saved $3,600
for the purpose of debt payment and had paid one of the outstanding debts. Decision at 2-3.   The
Judge also found that Applicant had deliberately falsified his security clearance application (SCA)
when in response to the questions as to whether he had debts that had been delinquent more than 90
and 180 days respectively, or any judgements against him, he answered “no.” Decision at 3-4.
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 rebut or mitigate those
concerns.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  “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). 
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made.’” 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).  Accordingly, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision
under Guidelines F and E is sustainable.
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: Jeffrey D. Billett              
3
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board