KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence.  Rather, we evaluate a Judge’s decision in
light of the evidence available to him or her at the close of the record.   Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 08-11531.a1
DATE: 04/16/2010
DATE: April 16, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-11531
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 4, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
2
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 February 4, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan
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 findings of fact were
supported by substantial record evidence; whether the Judge failed to consider record evidence
favorable to Applicant; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts for such things as credit
cards, personal loans, medical bills, an overdrawn bank account, etc.  He has been discharged in
Chapter 7 bankruptcy twice, once in 1993 and again in 2000.  Although Applicant experienced
unemployment during the entire year 2003, he has been continuously employed since 2004.  The
Judge stated that, assuming the information about his income and expenditures is correct, he has a
negative cash flow each month. In the Analysis portion of her decision, the Judge considered
Applicant’s period of unemployment.  However, she noted that he had experienced difficulty
managing his finances for over 17 years and that he had failed to demonstrate responsible action in
regard to his debts.  While acknowledging that Applicant has paid off some of his debts, the Judge
concluded nevertheless that these positive steps were outweighed by the extent of his remaining debt
and his “long history of financial irresponsibility[.]” Decision at 8.  Accordingly, she concluded that
Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in his case.
In support of his appeal, Applicant submits new evidence to the effect that he entered into
a debt management program after the close of the record.  He avers that many of the debts which the
Judge found against him are covered under this plan.  However, the Board cannot consider this new
evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal
Board.”)  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06875 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009); ISCR Case No. 08-06518
at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009).  Rather, we evaluate a Judge’s decision in light of the evidence
available to him or her at the close of the record.  
Regarding Applicant’s claim that the Judge did not consider evidence which he submitted
in his own behalf, 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’s findings of fact and analysis demonstrate that she did
consider, among other things, Applicant’s period of unemployment as a contributing factor to his
financial difficulties and the fact that he had paid off some of his debts.  However, she reasonably
explained why Applicant’s favorable evidence was not sufficient to meet his burden of persuasion
as to mitigation.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  (After the Government presents evidence raising security
concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns.)  Applicant’s brief
on appeal is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered the entire record.
Neither does it demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner which is arbitrary,
3
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21819 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 13, 2009);
ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).  
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: Jean E. Smallin                     
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board