KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Although there is record evidence that Applicant had paid some debts listed in his
credit report, the Judge’s statement that Applicant had not paid even one of his debts is
sustainable as it pertains to the debts cited in the SOR.  Arguments that rely on events which
have not yet occurred do not demonstrate error by the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-01368.a1
DATE: 04/23/2010
DATE: April 23, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-01368
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 12, 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 25, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey
Anderson 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 and whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant’s SOR lists nine
delinquent debts, each of which he admits.  The debts are for medical treatment, student loans, a
repossessed vehicle, etc.  Applicant has experienced unemployment for various periods between
2005 and 2008.  He has hired an attorney to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in his behalf.
The Judge considered the effect which Applicant’s unemployment had on his financial
condition, and she also considered his intention to file for bankruptcy.  However, she also noted that
Applicant had been constantly employed since 2008 and yet had done little to resolve his debts.  She
concluded that, at the close of the record, Applicant had “not presented sufficient evidence to
demonstrate a track record of financial responsibility or that he [had] resolved his financial
indebtedness.”  Decision at 5.  Accordingly, she concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the
security concerns arising from his delinquent debts.
Applicant challenges the factual sufficiency of the Judge’s statement that he had not satisfied
“even one of his debts.”  Decision at 6.  This statement appears in her whole-person analysis.  The
record contains evidence that certain of the debts listed in Applicant’s credit report had been
satisfied.  However, Applicant’s admissions to the SOR and the record evidence, including evidence
which he submitted himself, demonstrate that the debts alleged in the SOR were not satisfied as of
the close of the record.  We conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are based
upon substantial record evidence.  See  Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of
all the contrary evidence in the same record.”)  Applicant’s appeal arguments rely to a significant
degree on the occurrence of events in the future.  Such arguments do not demonstrate error by the
Judge.  
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,’” both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person
factors.  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
3
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