Decision at 2.  See Directive E3.1.3: “A letter of instruction with the SOR shall explain that applicant or1
Department Counsel may request a hearing.”  The Department Counsel’s request for a hearing shall be within 20 days
of receipt of an applicant’s answer to the SOR.  Directive E3.1.7.  
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from his delinquent debts and
from his false responses to the security clearance application.  Applicant failed to meet his
burden of persuasion that he was denied the due process afforded by the Directive.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-10936.a1
DATE: 12/10/2009
DATE: December 10, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-10936
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 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) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Department Counsel requested a hearing.   On September 21, 2009, after the1
hearing, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
“Q: [W]hy didn’t you mark down [on the SCA] that you had bills that were outstanding?” . . . A: Honestly, I2
don’t know why I didn’t . . . I don’t think I was trying to hide it.  It’s just I guess I needed to get a Credit Report and see
what my credit was and you had brought it to my attention.”  Tr. at 26.  “Q: Why did you only list one of your arrests
and not the other four in your [SCA]?  A: I have no excuse.  I don’t know why I didn’t . . . Maybe it was so long ago I
forgot.  I don’t want to say I lied.  I just didn’t do it.  I don’t know if I was in a hurry to fill out the questionnaire.  But
you all found it pretty quick and straightened me out.”  Tr. at 35.  
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether he was denied due process because
he was not represented by counsel; whether the Judge failed to consider all the record evidence;
whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis 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 that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts.  Of the 29 debts listed in the
SOR, Applicant had paid off only one.  For the others he had made no attempt to make payments,
despite having a sufficient amount of money to do so.  Additionally, Applicant answered “no” to
questions on the security clearance application (SCA) inquiring about debts delinquent over 180 days
and about whether he currently had debts delinquent for 90 days. These answers were not true.  On
a SCA question concerning charges or convictions related to alcohol or drugs, Applicant omitted
four charges for illegal possession of alcohol; public intoxication and resisting arrest; possession of
marijuana; and public intoxication and domestic violence.    
Regarding the delinquent debts, the Judge concluded, inter alia, that Applicant had not
demonstrated any effort to pay off his remaining debts, that he had not presented evidence of a plan
to do so, and that he had not demonstrated that his failure to pay his debts is due to causes outside
his control.  Regarding the omissions on the SOR, the Judge stated that the questions were clear and
unambiguous; that Applicant’s educational attainments were such that he should have been able to
understand their meaning; and that he had provided no credible reason for having omitted the
information in question.   Accordingly, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the2
security concerns arising from his financial condition and from his omissions to the SOR.
Applicant contends that his ability to present his case was hampered by his lack of
representation.  The record demonstrates, however, that prior to the hearing Applicant was informed
in writing of his rights, including the right to counsel or some other representative.  Furthermore, at
the beginning of the hearing the Judge asked Applicant if he understood his right to counsel and if
he intended to represent himself.  Applicant answered “yes” to both questions.  Tr. at 6.  A review
of the entire record discloses no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the rights due him under
the Directive or that he had not been adequately advised of those rights.  ISCR Case No. 08-03110
at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 2009).  “Having decided to represent himself during the proceedings below,
Applicant cannot fairly complain about the quality of his self-representation or seek to be relieved
of the consequences of his decision to represent himself.”  ISCR Case No. 08-03110 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jan. 27, 2009). 
Applicant also contends that the Judge failed to consider his explanations for the conduct
giving rise to the security concerns in this case.  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 has pointed to nothing in the
record that would rebut the presumption.  Furthermore, a party’s disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation thereof, is not sufficient
to demonstrate the Judge either failed to consider all of the evidence or mis-weighed it.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).  In his appeal brief, Applicant submits
matters not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No
new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-
06875 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009); ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009); ADP
Case No. 08-03721 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 28, 2009).
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and
the whole-person factors.  The decision draws “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 national security to grant
Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 9.  “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: 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