KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Favorable language in the Judge decision only demonstrated that the Judge the
mitigating evidence.  It did not detract from the ultimate adverse decision.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 08-06591.a1
DATE: 10/16/2009
DATE: October 16, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06591
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 15, 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 July 29, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 considered all the record
evidence; whether the Judge’s application of the pertinent mitigating conditions was erroneous; and
whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found against Applicant on four of the seven debts alleged in the SOR.  These four
were delinquent debts arising from credit cards, consumer purchases, a car loan, and a veterinarian
bill.  The total amount of this debt is $22,260.  Applicant’s financial problems were caused in part
by a job loss.  To address his financial situation, Applicant entered into a relationship with a debt
consolidation company.  Applicant submitted to the Judge five checks that he claimed he had sent
to this company in payment for its services.  However, he subsequently stated that he had informed
the company to shred the checks and that they had not actually been cashed.  In deciding the case
adversely to Applicant, the Judge stated that Applicant “should have acted more aggressively to pay
his delinquent debts[.]”  Decision at 10.  
 In support of his appeal Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the record,
for example three credit reports dated September 8, 2009.  The Board cannot consider this new
evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal
Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009).  Applicant contends that
the Judge did not consider evidence which he believes to be favorable to his case.  For example, he
contends that the Judge did not read his contract with the debt consolidation company.  However,
a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record.  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).
Applicant’s appeal presentation is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.
Applicant points to favorable language in the Judge’s decision which, inter alia,
acknowledges that Applicant has paid off certain debts not listed in the SOR, that he has never had
a security violation, that he is a law-abiding citizen and good family member, and that his financial
problems were “initially caused by unemployment and underemployment[.]” Decision at 10.
Applicant believes that these comments by the Judge are inconsistent with his unfavorable decision.
However, the Judge went on to say that these favorable matters are outweighed by evidence of
Applicant’s lack of judgement in the management of his financial affairs and other evidence which
the Judge reasonably concluded detracted significantly from Applicant’s credibility.  Read in context,
the comments which Applicant has cited merely demonstrate that the Judge considered the full range
of potentially mitigating evidence contained in the file but concluded that such evidence was not
sufficient to establish that Applicant had met his burden of persuasion.  
3
 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 or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this
record.  Decision at 11.  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 unfavorable security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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