KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge concluded that Applicant had not initiated good-faith efforts to pay off his
delinquent debts.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence unless the record
demonstrates otherwise.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 08-06438.a1
DATE: 08/04/2009
DATE: August 4, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06438
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 December 8, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On May 27, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey
Anderson 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 the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence was erroneous and whether the Judge’s application of the pertinent mitigating conditions
was erroneous.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had significant delinquent debt, much of it for student loans.
Although he has paid off two of his smaller debts, the Judge concluded that, at the close of the
record, it was too early to determine if Applicant’s efforts to address his financial problems “will
be successful.”  Decision at 5.  The Judge further stated that Applicant “has not initiated a prompt,
good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve his debts.”  Id. at 6.  As a
consequence, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised in
his case.
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence which be believed was favorable
to his case.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence unless the record demonstrates
otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009); ISCR Case No. 07-
00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  The Board finds no basis to conclude that the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See ISCR Case No. 06-17409
at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).  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 interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant” 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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board