KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Direct evidence of nexus between proven conduct or circumstances under any of the
guidelines and security eligibility is not required.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08–06506.a1
DATE: 07/30/2010
DATE: July 30, 2010
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-06506
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Eric J. McNeilus, Esq.
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
See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b), which mitigates security concerns when “the conditions that resulted in the1
financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances[.]”  
2
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5520.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On May 7, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson
Gales 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 failed to consider record
evidence favorable to Applicant; whether the Judge failed to link Applicant’s financial situation to
the likelihood of coercion; whether the Judge erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating
conditions; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis is erroneous.  Consistent with the
following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an employee of a
Defense contractor.  He served in a state Air National Guard (ANG) from 1996 to 2006, during
which time he held a security clearance.  He holds an associate’s degree.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for medical expenses, mortgage payments, cell
phone services, etc.  Applicant experienced some employment difficulties when he was discharged
from the ANG due to his being too old for pilot training and to his not having a bachelor’s degree.
In evaluating Applicant’s case, the Judge noted his period of underemployment following
his discharge form the ANG.  However, the Judge also concluded that Applicant’s decision not to
seek full time employment after his discharge, in hopes of securing another ANG position, was a
circumstance within his control and, accordingly, of little mitigating force.   He also concluded that1
some of Applicant’s claims to have paid off debts were not true, that Applicant presented no
reasonable basis to dispute any of his debts, and that Applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable
plan to address delinquent debts.
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider record evidence favorable to his case for
mitigation, for example that his financial condition is currently stable, that he had to relinquish his
hopes of becoming an ANG pilot, and his contention that he did not purposely ignore his creditors’
claims for payment.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered the entire record.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 08-06873 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 18, 2009).  Applicant’s contentions on appeal are not
enough to rebut that presumption.  
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to identify a link between his financial situation and
his potential to be coerced into committing security violations.  To the extent that Applicant is
raising a nexus issue, the Directive presumes that there is a nexus or rational connection between
proven circumstances under any of its Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility.  See, e.g.,
3
ISCR Case No. 03-22643 at 7 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2005).  Direct or objective evidence of nexus is not
required.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-18218 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 2005).
Applicant notes that the Judge discusses the other factors delineated in Enclosure 2, ¶ 2(a)
but not the potential for coercion.  Applicant’s assertion is only partly accurate.  The Judge did cite
to Enclosure 2, ¶ 2(a)(8) at the top of page 16 but failed to recite it again on a similar list on page 17.
The Board does not read sentences in isolation.  A fair reading of the Judge’s decision suggests that
he gave adequate consideration to the facts and circumstances of Applicant’s case. 
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 that 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 security clearance 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. 581, 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