DATE: January 10, 2011
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06688
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 February 16, 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 September 30, 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 failed to consider all of
the record evidence and whether the Judge’s application of the mitigating conditions was erroneous.
Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge.
1The SOR alleges that the debts underlying the Judge’s adverse formal findings were owed to a
telecommunications company and to several banks, including the mortgage lender.  
2See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified
information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”  
2
Facts
The Judge found that, in 2007, Applicant was laid off by his employer of fourteen years.  At
that time, Applicant had a condominium that he had purchased for investment.  The purchase was
secured by first and second mortgages on the property.  Several months after he lost his job,
Applicant defaulted on his mortgage payments.  The property has gone into foreclosure.  The SOR
alleged other debts as well.1  Applicant admitted four of the debts alleged in the SOR.  He claimed
that some of his debts were due to an incident of identity theft.  Applicant received tax refunds of
$3,000 and $3,300 respectively for tax years 2008 and 2009.  “He did not provide any information
which showed that this money paid any of his debts.”  Decision at 5.
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s job loss and
incident of identity theft.  However, she also stated that Applicant had not demonstrated that his
financial problems are being resolved or that other mitigating conditions fully apply.  The Judge
noted a paucity of record evidence supporting Applicant’s case for mitigation.  She stated that,
insofar as doubts about an applicant’s security worthiness must be resolved against him or her,2 she
could not grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Discussion   
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence, for example
Applicant’s evidence of identity theft, unemployment, and the foreclosure sale.  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).  In this case, the Judge explicitly discussed Applicant’s claim of identity
theft, his foreclosure action, his unemployment, and other matters favorable to him, citing to several
of Applicant’s exhibits.  The Judge plausibly explained why Applicant’s evidence was not sufficient
to mitigate the security concerns in his case.  Applicant has failed to rebut the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the record evidence.
  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.’”  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 treatment of the mitigating conditions and her adverse decision are 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). 
3
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