KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate responsible behavior in regard to his debts, nor did he
establish a meaningful track record of debt repayment.  Any error in the Judge’s findings
regarding the total amount of Applicant’s debts is harmless.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-11782.a1
DATE: 02/17/2010
DATE: February 17, 2010
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-11782
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 25, 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 20, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Thomas M.
Crean 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 certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial record evidence; whether the Judge ignored record evidence
favorable to Applicant; 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 for medical expenses, credit
cards, telephone services, etc.  The total amount of the debt was $33,434.  Although Applicant’s
financial problems originated in an economic downturn that was outside his control, the Judge
concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible behavior in regard to his finances, nor
had he established a “meaningful track record” of debt repayment.  “He has not presented a concrete
systematic plan for resolving his debt problems.  He has no payment plans in place, and no methods
of saving to pay debts.  He has sufficient monthly income to not only meet his present obligations,
but to make some payments on delinquent debts.”  Decision at 8.  Accordingly, the Judge concluded
that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.
Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact, for example the exact total amount
of Applicant’s delinquent debts.  However, under the facts of this case, the difference in amounts is
without security significance.  Therefore, if the Judge committed error, it was harmless.  See ISCR
Case No. 01-23362 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006); ISCR Case No. 03-09915 (App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2004);
ISCR Case No. 01-11192 (App. Bd. Aug. 26, 2002).  Although Applicant contends that the Judge
did not consider his testimony concerning his monthly expenses, his presentation on appeal is not
sufficient to rebut the presumption that the 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).  Finally, we conclude that the Judge’s whole-person analysis complied with the
requirements of Directive ¶ E2.2.1, in that the Judge considered the totality of Applicant’s conduct
in reaching his decision.  See ISCR Case No. 05-03948 at 3-4 (App. Bd. May 21, 2007); ISCR Case
No. 04-09959 at 6 (App. Bd. May 19, 2006). 
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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record.   “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