KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Given Applicant’s history of delinquent debt and the paucity of evidence regarding
attempts to resolve the debt, the case in mitigation was not persuasive.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 09-04094.a1
DATE: 07/08/2010
DATE: July 8, 2010
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-04094
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 July 20, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
The hearing in Applicant’s case was conducted on January 29, 2010.  1
2
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 May 10, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 mis-weighed the evidence; and whether the
Judge erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is employed by a Defense
contractor.  He served in the U.S. Navy from 1989 to 1996.  While on active duty, he held a Top
Secret security clearance.  Applicant is married.  He and his wife have no children.
Applicant has significant delinquent debts, for such things as medical expenses, cell phone
services, credit cards, and education loans.  His debts total approximately $72,000.  His financial
problems were related to periods of unemployment following his discharge from the Navy and also
to an employer having lost a Defense contract, resulting in Applicant having to accept follow-on
work at a lower salary.  He has hired a debt management service to assist him in resolving his
financial difficulties.  However, “[h]e presented no evidence of any prior financial counseling,
participation in consumer debt consolidation programs, [or] that he was following a budget prior to
February 2010.”   Decision at 4.  1
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge stated:
Applicant and his wife were living beyond their financial means . . . He presented
little evidence of debt payments, contacts with creditors, or negotiations to resolve
his SOR debts.  Considering the evidence as a whole, his financial problems are not
under control.  Applicant receives credit for contracting the services of a debt
management company . . . However, it is too soon to determine whether he has a
viable plan to resolve his financial predicament or that he will be able to avoid
similar financial problems in the future.  Decision at 6.    
Applicant’s appeal raises the issue of whether the Judge either did not consider or did not
properly weigh evidence favorable to him, for example his employment difficulties and his having
held a Top Secret clearance while in the Navy.  However, the record demonstrates that the Judge
explicitly considered these matters, along with other favorable evidence, in his Analysis of
Applicant’s case for mitigation.  On the other hand, he plausibly explained his conclusion that
Applicant’s financial problems originated in part from his having lived beyond his means.  The
Judge also concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a responsible approach to his finances.
The record evidence, viewed as a whole, supports this conclusion.   Applicant has not rebutted the
3
presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196
at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009).  Neither has he demonstrated 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).
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, in light of
the standard announced in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988):  “The general
standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the
national security.’” 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.    
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan             
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Member, 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