KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge addressed Applicant’s favorable evidence but reasonably concluded it was
outweighed the extent of the delinquent debts and the recency of the efforts to resolve them. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-10011.a1
DATE: 11/06/2009
DATE: November 6, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-10011
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 January 27, 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 August 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan
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 to consider record
evidence favorable to Applicant; whether the Judge erred in her application of the pertinent
mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant is a support specialist working for a federal contractor.  He
has previously served with the U.S. Army, during which time he held a security clearance.
Applicant has significant delinquent debts for medical expenses, credit cards, consumer
purchases, etc.  He owes child support as the result of a previous marriage and has experienced
health problems at a time when he did not have health insurance.  He also owes back taxes to the IRS
from tax year 2003.  He has consulted with a financial counselor but has not entered into a debt
repayment plan.  In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge noted the circumstances outside
Applicant’s control that affected his financial condition.  She also noted his good work record and
his record of achievement in the Army.  However, she concluded that Applicant had not begun to
address his delinquent debts until relatively recently and that, as a consequence, he failed to meet his
burden of persuasion as to mitigation.   
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider favorable evidence, such as the extent to
which he is attempting to resolve his financial problems and his evidence of his good work ethic and
reliability.  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).  In the case under consideration here, the Judge addressed Applicant’s favorable
evidence, but she reasonably concluded that it was outweighed by other factors, such as the extent
of the delinquent debts and the recency of Applicant’s efforts to resolve them.  
In light of the Egan standard, the Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable.  Decision at
11.  See 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 D. Hipple           
Michael D. Hipple
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