KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J; Guideline E
DIGEST: The judge found that Applicant still has some $26,000 in delinquent debt.  The Judge
concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation to support a favorable
security clearance determination.  Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 07-17806.a1
DATE:11/21/2008
DATE: November 21, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-17806
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 February 14, 2008 DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR subparagraphs 1(a), (c-e), (g-h), (jj) and under Guidelines J and1
E is not at issue in this appeal.  
2
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
September 16, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   Finding no error, we affirm.1
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts.  He found that some of the
debts alleged in the SOR were apparently duplicates of others.  Additionally, he decided in favor of
Applicant on debts that Applicant demonstrated he had actually paid off.  However, the Judge
reasonably concluded that, even discounting these matters, Applicant still had at least $26,471 in
delinquent debt.  After examining the possible application of pertinent mitigating conditions, the
Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of his financial situation
to support a favorable security clearance adjudication.  The Judge’s decision, viewed in light of the
record as a whole, draws a rational connection between the facts found and its ultimate denial of a
security clearance for Applicant.  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 Applicant
eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 12.  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
3
Signed; James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board