KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate a track record of responsible actions in regard to his
delinquent debts.  There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge has considered all the
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-08901.a1
DATE: 01/07/2010
DATE: January 7, 2010
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-08901
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 February 3, 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 October 9, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross
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
pertinent 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 is an employee of a defense contractor.  He is married.  He
has significant delinquent debts for such things as consumer purchases, medical expenses, telephone
bills, credit cards, etc.  Applicant enjoys a reputation for conscientiousness and reliability.  The Judge
noted that Applicant’s financial problems were affected his wife’s illness.  However, the Judge
concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  Specifically,
the Judge stated that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of responsible actions in regard
to his many debts.  
Applicant argues that the Judge failed to consider his family’s circumstances and his security
history.  There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge has considered all the record evidence.  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’s arguments are insufficient to rebut that presumption.  Furthermore,
the Judge discussed Applicant’s family’s circumstances.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the
Judge failed to consider the pertinent record evidence.   
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 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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