KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A judge cannot promise someone a favorable security clearance adjudication,
especially, when, as here, she has not yet reviewed all the record evidence.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 09-06602.a1
DATE: 01/28/2011
DATE: January 28, 2011
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06602
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 May 11, 2010, 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 November 8, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry
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 considered all the record
evidence and whether the Judge violated an agreement between her and Applicant.  Consistent with
the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge noted that Applicant, age 51, is attending college.  The Judge found for Applicant
on three debts alleged in the SOR but also found Applicant has four delinquent debts totaling
approximately $40,000.  The judge found that Applicant’s only plan is to pay these debts when his
income improves.  The Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns
arising from this finances under Guideline F 
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider his statement that he initiated a good
faith effort at paying his debts by taking classes in pursuit of his bachelor’s degree.  A Judge is
presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case 09-01735 at 2
(App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2010).  There is nothing in Applicant’s presentation on appeal or in the Decision
to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. 
Applicant points to an exchange he had with the Judge at the Hearing.  Applicant said:
“Rather than face an adverse decision in this matter, I am willing to submit to remedial measures
the honorable judge might deem necessary.” (Transcript, p. 55)  In short order she said to him “I’m
going to ask for a few things from you . . . I’ve got several things I want . . .”  (Transcript, p. 56)
The Judge proceeded to request five types of documentary evidence from Applicant.  Applicant
contends that this constituted an agreement between him and the Judge that if he provided the items
requested she would not deny him a security clearance.   Applicant’s reading of the text is not
wholly implausible.  However, it is not the only plausible reading.  The Board is not inclined to
adopt a reading which would be plain error.  A judge cannot promise someone a favorable security
clearance adjudication, especially, when, as here,  she has not yet reviewed all the record evidence.
The Board acknowledges that the other reading of the transcript is also potentially problematic.
Even if they did not have an agreement, the Judge risked compromising her impartiality by advising
Applicant what evidence to produce.  However, for that reading Applicant (the appealing party here)
would not be the aggrieved party and there is no cross-appeal.  Therefore, the Board need not resolve
any questions raised by the alternative reading.
 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
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board