KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant was advised in writing and orally of right to employ counsel.  There is no
reason to conclude that her decision to represent herself was not knowing or voluntary.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-02110.a1
DATE: 04/16/2010
DATE: April 16, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-02110
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 30, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
2
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On January 27, 2010, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 she was denied due process;
whether the Judge mis-weighed the evidence; 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 found that Applicant works for a Defense subcontractor that provides
communications services.  She is a shift supervisor.  She served in the Army from 1998 until 2005
and is taking college courses in computer information systems.  She divorced her husband in 2006,
after six years of marriage.  
After her divorce, Applicant purchased a house for $325,000, financing the entire purchase.
She also financed the purchase of furniture.  She became financially overwhelmed and began to fall
behind in her mortgage payments.  Ultimately the lender foreclosed on the home, reselling it with
no deficiency.  Around the same time her house payments became delinquent, she experienced
delinquencies in other accounts as well–debts for medical services, credit cards, etc.  She has
contracted with a credit counseling service, paying $137 a month toward the start-up fee.  “Applicant
provided no evidence documenting either her agreement with the company or the payments she
allegedly made to the company.”  Decision at 4.  
In completing her security clearance application (SCA) Applicant answered “no” to a
question inquiring as to whether, within the prior seven years, she had debts that were delinquent
more than 180 days.  This answer was not correct.  The Judge concluded that, given the extent and
significance of Applicant’s delinquent debts, especially the mortgage payments, her claim of
innocent error in not credible.  
Applicant contends that, at the hearing, she was nervous and not so fully prepared as she
needed to be.  We construe this as a claim that she was denied due process of law by proceeding pro
se.   We have examined the record.  Applicant was advised, in writing prior to the hearing and orally
at the beginning of the hearing, of her right to employ counsel to represent her.  Tr. at 5.  There is
no reason to conclude that she was not aware of her right to counsel or that her decision to represent
herself was not knowing or voluntary.  See ISCR Case No. 08-03110 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 2009);
ISCR Case No. 02-08032 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2004).  Furthermore, Applicant presented
documentary evidence and called a witness in her own behalf.  The record demonstrates that she
presented a satisfactory case in her own behalf.  Her appeal cites to no evidence that she would have
presented but was unaware of her right to do so, or to any other matter which would suggest that she
was denied the due process afforded by the Directive.  See ISCR Case No. 08-03110 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jan. 27, 2009).
3
Applicant claims on appeal that the Judge did not properly weigh the evidence favorable to
her.  However, the Judge’s decision acknowledges and discusses such matters as her divorce, which
is a mitigating circumstance, and that she had also paid off certain of her debts.  However, he also
noted that Applicant’s financial problems arose after the divorce and were due, in large part, to her
own decisions, such as 100% financing of a home and its furnishings.  The Judge also reasonably
noted that Applicant had not provided much information about her debt repayment plan.
Furthermore, his conclusion that Applicant knowingly omitted information on her SCA was
reasonable.  We find no reason to conclude that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21819 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 13,
2009).
We also conclude that the Judge’s whole person analysis, although brief, 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. 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: 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
4
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board