KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2001.  Since then, he has
acquired additional delinquent debt, two of which remain delinquent at the time of the hearing. 
The Judge properly concluded that Applicant was unable or unwilling to satisfy his debts and that
he had a history of not meeting his financial obligations.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-17965.a1
DATE: 10/29/2008
DATE: October 29, 2008 
In Re:
-------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-17965
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
Directive ¶¶ E2.19(a), (c).  1
The Judge did find in Applicant’s favor in regard to the $420 debt.  2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 25, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On August 4, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan
J. Rivera 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 security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an accountant.  He is
unmarried and has no children.  He encountered financial difficulties in 2001 and filed for Chapter
7 bankruptcy protection.  He was discharged in bankruptcy late in the year.  Afterward he acquired
additional debt which became delinquent.  One debt was in the amount of $6,640.  Another was in
the amount of $10,975, and the third was for $420.  Applicant made payments of $50 to the first two
of those debtors.  However, those two debts were still delinquent at the close of the record.  
The Judge properly concluded that Applicant’s case raised security concerns under Guideline
F, specifically that Applicant was unable or unwilling to satisfy his debts and that he had a history
of not meeting his financial obligations.   The record demonstrates that the Judge considered the1
appropriate Guideline F mitigating conditions.  However, he concluded that Applicant’s delinquent
debts, coming close on the heels of his discharge in bankruptcy, precluded favorable application of
any of those conditions.   “Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish he acted2
responsibly and in good faith in the handling of his financial affairs . . . His overall conduct with his
creditors casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.”  Decision at 7.
For similar reasons, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion under
the whole-person factors.  Noting that Applicant’s status as an accountant and his recent experience
with bankruptcy were sufficient to place him on notice as to the requirements for good financial
health, the Judge concluded that the favorable record evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate
Applicant’s worthiness for a security clearance.  
The Board has examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole.  Applicant
chose to have the case decided upon the written record, with the  result that his credibility could not
be evaluated in the context of a hearing.  See ISCR Case No. 08-00899 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 29, 2008).
Additionally, Applicant did not reply to the Government’s File of Relevant Material.  Accordingly,
the Board concludes that the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his
ultimate adverse security clearance decision, especially in light of the paucity of mitigating evidence.
See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also 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 that “it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue eligibility for a security clearance”
for Applicant is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 8.  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly
consistent with the interests of the national security’”).  In support of his appeal Applicant has
submitted new matters not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”).  
Order
The Judge’s averse 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