KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged finding regarding Applicant’s dismissed bankruptcy is
consistent with the record evidence and sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-03621.a1
DATE: 12/03/2010
DATE: December 3, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-03621
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 19, 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 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
1See Tr. at 22: “Q: The reason people fail in [Chapter 13 bankruptcy] . . . the monthly payment is too much.
When it gets to be too much they can’t pay it.  The court gets notified and the plan gets dismissed.  Is that what
happened?  A: In the end, yes, sir.”  See also the Summary of Applicant’s Clearance Interview, contained in Government
Exhibit 2, Interrogatories: “In 3/09 he received notice from the court that the case was being dismissed.  He is unclear
as to the reason but thought it had something to do with his 2007 income tax return or pay stubs which had been
submitted.”  The Judge noted this evidence in his decision.  Decision at 3-4.    
2
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 31, 2010, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial record evidence; whether the Judge failed to consider all of the
record evidence or mis-weighed the evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following discussion, we
affirm the decision of the Judge.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  Applicant has numerous delinquent
debts for such things as credit cards, loans, and consumer goods.  Many of the debts originated from
his time in the U. S. Navy, from which he was discharged in 2003.  Applicant filed for Chapter 13
bankruptcy in 2008, although the petition was subsequently dismissed.  Applicant has a net monthly
income of approximately $6,200, with $3,000 left over after expenses.  Although Applicant had paid
off some of the debts alleged in the SOR, he still owed over $70,000.  The Judge concluded that
Applicant had failed to demonstrate mitigation, in light of his dismissed bankruptcy petition and
failure to pay off his debts, despite significant discretionary income.  
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in some of his findings.  In particular, he claims that
the Judge erred in stating that the bankruptcy petition was dismissed due to failure to make
payments.  Rather, he states that the evidence shows that the petition was dismissed because
Applicant had an incompetent attorney.  Applicant also contends that the Judge’s findings about
particular debts contain errors.  However, the Judge’s statement about the bankruptcy, found in the
Analysis portion of his decision, is consistent with the record evidence.  While the Judge considered
Applicant’s testimony that his attorney was ineffective, the challenged statement is sustainable.1
The Judge’s material findings, considered as a whole, are supported by the record and are
sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-11735 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2010).   
Concerning Applicant’s contention that the Judge ignored or mis-weighed the record
evidence, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 09-01735 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2010).  Applicant’s apparent disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered
all of the evidence in making his decision.  Neither is Applicant’s argument sufficient to demonstrate
that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01970 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2010).
3
The record supports a conclusion 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,’” 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 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).  Applicant contends that we should remand the case
to the Judge to reopen the record and take in additional evidence.  However, in light of our holding,
we need not address this request.
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: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board