KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge noted absence of evidence as to the cause of Applicant’s indebtedness and
the lack of a track record of responsible financial conduct.  Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 09-01753.a1
DATE: 12/18/2009
DATE: December 18, 2009
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-01753
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 June 16, 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
Applicant asserts that the record evidence shows that her family’s financial troubles were due to loss of1
employment.  She had made such a statement in her security clearance application.  However, the Judge correctly
observed that the record evidence indicates that Applicant’s financial problems preceded the cited loss of employment.
2
requested a decision on the written record.  On October 8, 2009, after considering the record,
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’s application of the
mitigating conditions 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 approximately $31,000 in delinquent debts, which were
discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in mid-2009.  The Judge acknowledged that the specific debts
alleged in the SOR were no longer owed due to the bankruptcy.  She also acknowledged that
Applicant’s financial condition was affected by a job loss and pregnancy.  However, the Judge
concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case.  Specifically, the
Judge noted the paucity of record evidence explaining the reason for Applicant having amassed the
debts in the first place.   She also concluded that Applicant had not established a track record of1
responsible financial conduct, given the relative recency of the bankruptcy at  the close of the record.
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 national
security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision
at 7.  “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: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
3
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board