KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Each case must be decided on its own merits.  This case is distinguishable from the
cases cited by Applicant.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-00525.a1
DATE: 03/23/2010
DATE: March 23, 2010
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-00525
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Samuel Bluck, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 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
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On December 31, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro
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 failed to consider record
evidence favorable to Applicant; whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous; and
whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  Applicant is a research analyst and
writer for a Defense contractor.  He enlisted in the Navy.  He subsequently attended college on a
ROTC scholarship and served in the Navy as a commissioned officer.  He retired as an 0-4, having
been approved to leave the service about one year in advance of his actual retirement date. 
Applicant’s first marriage ended in divorce, and his ex-wife died in 2006.  He remarried in
2007 and has a four-year-old stepson.  After retiring from the military, Applicant experienced a
period of underemployment, which affected his financial condition.
Applicant has significant delinquent debt for credit cards, medical treatment, and a
repossessed recreational vehicle (RV).  He had intended to live in the RV following his retirement.
However, after he retired, he did not make enough money to make payments on the RV, and it was
repossessed.  At the close of the record he owed over $27,000 for the vehicle.  He also has at least
four delinquent debts not listed in the SOR, the balance owed on them being approximately $16,000.
He has entered into repayment plans for these debts.
Applicant considered filing for bankruptcy protection, but an attorney advised him that he
made too much money for Chapter 7, and he did not want to pursue Chapter 13.  Applicant’s net
monthly salary is approximately $4,000.  He also receives a monthly payment of $2,900 in military
retirement.  Although he has a positive cash flow each month, he cannot account for how the
remainder of his income is spent.  Applicant held a security clearance while on active duty, with no
incident or concern.  He enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his character.
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge explicitly considered Applicant’s honorable
service in the Navy and his good security record.  However, he concluded that Applicant’s decision
to retire from the military without first reducing his debt or obtaining adequate replacement income
reflected poorly upon his judgement.  “[C]onsidering the disregard he has demonstrated since retiring
from the Navy for keeping his financial affairs in order and the continuing disregard he has shown
for resolving the financial problems he is experiencing, I find the whole person analysis is
insufficient to overcome the financial considerations concern that exists.”  Decision at 7.  
In support of his appeal, Applicant has cited to other Appeal Board cases which he contends
support his case for mitigation.  We give due consideration to them.  However, we conclude that they
3
are distinguishable from Applicant’s.  Unlike the prior cases, in this one the Judge reasonably
explained his conclusion that Applicant’s financial problems were caused by his own actions and
that he had not demonstrated sufficient attention to resolving his problems.  Moreover, each case
“must be decided upon its own merits.”  Directive ¶ E2.2.3.  
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all the record evidence.  Applicant cites
to evidence that he suffered financial loss when a mobile home he owned was destroyed.  He also
cites testimony that he experienced some financial pressure due to his having cared for his ex-wife
during her final illness.  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).  Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut this presumption, in
view of the totality of the record evidence.  We conclude that the Judge’s whole-person analysis
complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ E2.2.1, in that the Judge considered the totality of
Applicant’s circumstances in reaching his decision.  See ISCR Case No. 08-02464 at 3 (App. Bd.
Jul. 16, 2009); 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: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board