KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate that she is making a reasonable effort to address her
delinquent debts.  Two of the debts on the SOR were holdovers from a previous DOHA
adjudication.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-01642.a1
DATE: 07/07/2010
DATE: July 7, 2010
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-01642
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 August 20, 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 April 20, 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 the Judge erred in his application
of the mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is employed by a Defense
contractor.  A widow, she has three children.  She had financial difficulties following her husband’s
death in the late 1990s.  As a consequence, DOHA issued her a SOR in the early 2000s.  She went
to a hearing, and the Judge issued a favorable decision, based in part upon her promises to pay her
delinquent debts.
In the mid 2000s, Applicant experienced seven months of unemployment.  She filed for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, but the court dismissed the petition due to her failure to make
consistent payments.  
Applicant currently has about $86,000 worth of delinquent debts.  Though he acknowledged
that her financial problems were affected by circumstances outside her control, such as
unemployment, the Judge concluded that she had failed to demonstrate consistent monthly payments
toward discharging her debts.  He also noted that two of her delinquencies were at issue in her earlier
DOHA case, despite her promises at that time to pay them.  He concluded that Applicant had failed
to mitigate the security concerns in her case.
Applicant deserves credit for trying to earn a college degree while working and
raising children.  However, she has too much outstanding debt and offered too little
proof that she is satisfying it for me to conclude it no longer constitutes a security
concern, given the amount that remains outstanding.  Upon considering Applicant’s
case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude that her application for
a security clearance must be denied.  Decision at 6.
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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board