KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Although Applicant’s financial problems were affected by unemployment and a marital
breakup, she demonstrated no track record of financial responsibility.  A Judge is presumed to
have considered all the record evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-10221.a1
DATE: 01/21/2010
DATE: January 21, 2010
In Re:
----------------  
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-10221
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 26, 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 November 13, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Joan Caton
Anthony 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 ignored evidence
favorable to Applicant 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 several delinquent debts.  She acknowledged that
Applicant’s financial problems originated in a period of unemployment and from a marital breakup.
However, she concluded that Applicant has not demonstrated a track record of financial
responsibility.  “Applicant has experienced financial difficulties since at least 2005, but she has
addressed them only recently.  Applicant’s financial problems began when she was a mature adult,
and she failed to address her delinquent debts for a significant period, a decision that raises concerns
about her judgment and reliability.”  Decision at 7.
Applicant contends on appeal that the Judge either ignored or mis-weighed significant record
evidence, including the circumstances under which she first experienced her financial problems, the
extent to which she has paid off debts, and her development of a debt management plan.  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
any event, the Judge’s decision demonstrates that she considered the evidence favorable to
Applicant, but that she plausibly explained why she concluded that Applicant had, nevertheless,
failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case.  
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 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board