KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible behavior as to a
number of his delinquent debts.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-00651.a1
DATE: 11/20/2009
DATE: November 20, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-00651
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 May 28, 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
2
requested a hearing.  On September 8, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G.
Ricciardello 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 erred in her application
of the mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, which were caused in part
by his decision to assist family members with their own financial problems.  For example, he had
lent a family member two credit cards, upon which she made substantial charges.  Additionally, he
permitted another to live in one of his two houses, making the mortgage payments.  However, this
relative failed to make the payments as promised.  Although the Judge found in Applicant’s favor
for several of the debts, she concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible behavior as to the
remainder.  During the course of the hearing, Applicant admitted to an additional debt not alleged
in the SOR.  The Judge did not consider this debt “for disqualifying purposes.”  However, she stated
that she would consider it as an aspect of Applicant’s financial history and as part of her “whole-
person” analysis.  Decision at 3, n. 5.
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 clearly not in the interests of national
security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision
at 8.  “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the
interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean S. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                 
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
3
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board