KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant, a financial advisor, has delinquent debt in excess of $50,000.  The record
demonstrates that the Judge considered Applicant’s submissions and reasonably concluded that
she had failed to meet her burden of persuasion.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07584.a1
DATE: 10/02/2009
DATE: October 2, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07584
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 January 15, 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
Applicant also requests that the decision in her case be delayed six months, presumably leaving the record open1
so that her situation can be reevaluated.  The Board does not have the authority to process such a request.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29.  
See Directive ¶ E2.20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the2
person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”  
See Directive ¶ E2.20(c): “the person has received or is receiving counseling . . . and/or there are clear3
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]”
See Directive ¶ E2.20(d): “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise4
resolve debts[.]”  
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On July 8, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz,
Jr., 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 decision fails to
consider her evidence in mitigation and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.  1
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a financial advisor
employed by a defense contractor.  She previously held a security clearance in 1998 and 1999.
Applicant has delinquent debts totaling over $50,000.  Applicant claimed to have paid off
several of these debts, though she provided no corroboration.  She was offered settlement agreements
with three creditors, although there is no record evidence that she accepted the offers or paid the
debts. She was on maternity leave from April to June of 2001, during which time she experienced
a decline of income.  She testified that she receives no child support from her child’s father.  “Many
of the debts she disputes are medical accounts for which she had insurance.  However, she did not
corroborate her claims that she paid the necessary co-pays and deductibles associated with those
expenses.  She denies other debts because she does not recognize the creditors, but has not taken into
account potential successors-in-interest to the original creditors.”  Decision at 2. 
In deciding the case adversely to Applicant, the Judge stated that her maternity leave of three
months was not enough to have caused the financial problems alleged in the SOR and substantiated
by the Government.  As a consequence, her debts did not result from causes outside her control.2
Furthermore, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s response to her debts has not demonstrated
financial responsibility–she has not received credit counseling  and her payments have generally not3
been made in a timely manner.   “Whatever efforts she has made to address her poor finances have4
been sporadic, ineffectual, and largely undocumented.  The record does not indicate when, if ever,
her financial situation will be settled enough for her to make clear progress on her delinquent debts.”
Id. at 4.  
3
The record demonstrates that the Judge considered matters which Applicant submitted in her
own behalf.  However, he reasonably concluded that she had failed to meet her burden of persuasion
as to mitigation, in light of the age and extent of her debts and the paucity of record evidence as to
corrective action regarding them.  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 a security clearance for Applicant”
is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 5.  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: Jeffrey D. Billett                     
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                      
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board