KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant argues that she did not anticipate that Department Counsel would be against
her at the hearing.  Applicant received written guidance advising her that the hearing is an
adversarial proceeding in which the parties have the responsibility to present their respective
cases and that the Government is represented by an attorney known as Department Counsel. 
Applicant was represented by a personal representative at the hearing.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 09-05830.a1
DATE: 06/25/2010
DATE: June 25, 2010
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-05830
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 November 6, 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 March 31, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G.
Ricciardello 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 did not consider all the
record evidence; whether Applicant was denied due process; and whether the Judge erred in her
application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a contract specialist
working for a federal contractor.  She has earned some college credits.  She is unmarried and has no
children.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such things as rent, an automobile loan,
medical expenses, a student loan, etc.  The medical bills were for treatment she had received
believing that she was covered by her father’s insurance.  The automobile loan was a debt in
Applicant’s name alone, although when she purchased the car she was under the impression that her
father and uncle were going to assist her in making payments.  Additionally, Applicant signed a lease
for the purpose of providing a friend a place to live while the friend was undergoing personal
hardships.  However, the friend skipped out on the lease, leaving Applicant liable.  Applicant has
not sought financial counseling.  
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence that Applicant had engaged in
repayment of some of her debts.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the
evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-06873 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 18, 2009).  In the
case under consideration here, the Judge acknowledged that Applicant had made some effort at
repayment.  However, the Judge also explained why she concluded that Applicant had not acted
responsibly to her debt situation viewed as a whole.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the record evidence.  Neither has Applicant demonstrated that the Judge
mis-weighed the record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21819 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 13, 2009).
Applicant’s brief discusses the role of the Department Counsel prior to the hearing with the
comment “I did not realize she was going to be against me rather than a source that could help me
properly prepare for a winning decision on my case.”  The Board construes Applicant’s argument
as a claim of denial of due process.  Applicant received written guidance for her hearing, which
reads, in pertinent part:
The hearing is an adversarial proceeding in which the parties have the responsibility
to present their respective cases.  The Government is normally represented by an
attorney known as a Department Counsel.  The Applicant has the option of appearing
by himself or herself without an attorney, or being represented by an attorney selected
3
and paid for by the Applicant, or by being represented by a Personal Representative
such as a friend, family member, or union representative.  Prehearing Guidance at 1.
The Board notes that Applicant was represented by a personal representative at the hearing.  The
record does not reasonably support a claim of denial of due process.
Concerning mitigation, the Judge concluded that circumstances outside Applicant’s control
had affected her financial problems.  However, as stated above, the Judge noted evidence which
tended to show that Applicant had not acted responsibly.  For example, the Judge cited record
evidence that Applicant agreed to undertake financial responsibilities beyond her means, such as the
lease on behalf of her friend, which undermines Applicant’s claim to have established a track record
of financial responsibility.  We find no reason to conclude that the Judge’s application of the
mitigating conditions was in error.
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: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
4
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board