KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found Applicant has numerous delinquent debts which were only partly
mitigated.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07359.a1
DATE: 10/13/2009
DATE: October 13, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07359
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James S. DelSordo, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On February 17, 2009, 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 17, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry
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 failed properly to apply
the Guideline F mitigating conditions and whether the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Finding no
error, we affirm.  
The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such matters as a state
tax lien, medical bills, credit card bills, and an automobile loan.  Her debts were affected by her
husband’s loss of employment as well as her own and by the fact that, at the time he managed the
household finances, her husband did not keep her apprised of their financial situation.  For example,
he did not pay their state income taxes for 2003, 2004, and 2005.  In deciding the case adversely to
Applicant, the Judge took into account the extent to which Applicant’s financial problems were
affected by circumstances beyond her control (including job loss and underemployment).  However,
the Judge also noted that Applicant’s debts arose, in part, due to poor financial management, and that
she has not sought financial counseling.  The Judge further noted that Applicant continues to struggle
with her bills and that she lacks a “definitive plan of action” to address her financial problems.
Decision at 8.  
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence which she believes mitigates the
security concerns in her case.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in
the record, and Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  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 has failed to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., 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
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision
at 9.  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.’”).
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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