KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant’s debts were caused in large measure by her husband’s
unemployment.  However , the Judge also concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated that
her financial problems were being resolved or were under control.  The Judge’s findings are
sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-01538.a1
DATE: 07/21/2009
DATE: 
In Re:
------------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-01538
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline F, subparagraphs 1(a), (e), (g-k), and under Guideline E are1
not at issue in this appeal.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 19, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the 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 May 21, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial record evidence; whether the Judge erred in his application of the
pertinent mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.1
Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant, an employee of a defense contractor, had acquired nearly
$15,000 in delinquent debt since 2004.  The debts were for such things as telephone services,
groceries, and a breached rental agreement.  The Judge found that the debts were caused in large
measure by Applicant’s husband’s unemployment.  However, he also concluded that Applicant had
not demonstrated that her financial problems were being resolved or were under control.  
The Board concludes that 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 same record.”)   After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the
Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the 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)).  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 7.  See also 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.’”)
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: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board