KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the record evidence.  The Judge
provided a reasonable explanation for her conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated a track
record of debt repayment.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-09704.a1
DATE: 03/31/2010
DATE: March 31, 2010
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-09704
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 29, 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 January 13, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry
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 record 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 is a technical order librarian for a Defense contractor.  She
retired from the Air Force after twenty years of service, and she has worked as a contractor ever
since.  She has held a security clearance since the beginning of her Air Force career, without incident
or concern.  Applicant’s husband is also retired from the Air Force.  He worked in the airline
industry, suffering a diminution in salary following the September 11, 2001, attacks.  He currently
performs maintenance work.
At the time they married, Applicant’s husband had significant debts.  The couple have
resolved his debts, though in doing so they neglected Applicant’s.  In addition, Applicant and her
husband have provided financial assistance to their daughter, who was raising children. 
Applicant herself has significant delinquent debts, for such things as a car repossession,
medical bills, and commercial credit accounts.  Although she has paid off some of her debts, the
Judge concluded that the remaining ones posed security concerns which Applicant had failed to
mitigate.  
Applicant contends that the Judge ignored evidence which, she believes, demonstrates that
she had resolved her medical bills.  She believes that the Judge substituted an unfavorable opinion
for record evidence.  We have examined the Judge’s detailed discussion of Applicant’s medical
debts.  We find no basis to conclude that her findings on these matters were not based upon
substantial record evidence.  Furthermore, the conclusions which she drew from these findings were
reasonable, principally that the record did not explain the circumstances underlying many of these
debts.  The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion as to mitigation,
which was a reasonable interpretation of the record.  
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 this case, the Judge discussed evidence which tended to show that Applicant’s financial
problems were, to a certain extent, a result of circumstances outside her control, and that several of
her debts had been satisfied, either by having been paid off or having been forgiven by the creditors.
However, she also provided a reasonable explanation for her conclusion that Applicant had failed
to demonstrate a track record of debt repayment or otherwise mitigate the remaining debts.  
After reviewing the record, we conclude 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: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
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