KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-06091.a1
DATE: 04/14/2011
DATE: April 14, 2011
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06091
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 March 24, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On January 12, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry
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 or mis-weighed record evidence and whether the Judge’s decision was 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 a degree in
mechanical engineering and works for a Defense contractor.  Married with four children, she is
pursuing a master’s degree in engineering.
In the early 1990s, Applicant and her husband owned rental properties.  These properties
were a source of difficulty, due to frequent vacancies, evictions, and repairs.  Applicant also
experienced medical problems that rendered her unable to work.  In 1995, she and her husband filed
for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and subsequently discharged $42,000 worth of debt.
In 2004, Applicant and her husband sold their house and purchased another one, putting
down $30,000 and financing the rest.  Later, they invested $10,000 in a trucking business.  The
business had difficulties, and the two had to finance it with credit cards.  They refinanced the house
and invested $50,000 of the equity in the business.  They also took out a second mortgage on their
house.  The combined monthly mortgage payments were $7,300.  
The trucking business always experienced financial problems, its operating expenses
exceeding its revenue.  Although Applicant’s husband ended the business and started working for
another company with no lapse in income, the couple still had to rely on credit cards to pay ordinary
living expenses.
Applicant attempted to persuade the holder of their home mortgage to modify the loan.
However, this request was rejected.  Applicant has not made mortgage payments on either the first
or second mortgages on the house since 2007.  At some point, the mortgage was assigned to another
bank.  In 2009, the new mortgagee initiated foreclosure proceedings.  However, a judge ruled that
the mortgagee lacked standing to foreclose because it did not hold the note at the time the action
commenced.  Ownership of the mortgage was still in litigation by the close of the record.
In 2007, Applicant began paying off outstanding credit card debt, although she did not
corroborate her claim that she had discharged $75,000 of non-SOR debt.  After paying off her credit
card debts, she began setting aside money in her 401k plan.  She did not corroborate her claim that
the amount she was placing in the 401k was equal to the amount she would otherwise have spent
on her mortgage payments.  
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge acknowledged that Applicant’s financial
3
problems were affected by circumstances outside her control.  However, he noted that her testimony
that she would be able to satisfy her mortgage debts once the litigation is resolved was not
corroborated and is merely speculative.  He concluded, therefore, that she had not met her burden
of persuasion.
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider record evidence corroborating her
testimony that she is depositing into her 401k plan an amount equal to her mortgage payments.  She
points to a document that she discussed in her hearing testimony.  Tr. at 54-55.  This document,
Applicant Exhibit F, includes two pay statements from her current employer.  One of the statements,
for a pay period ending August 31, 2007, shows year-to-date 401k contributions of $2001. 69.  This
is well below the $7,300 which Applicant owes monthly for her mortgage payments.  Applicant has
pointed to no evidence supporting her claim.  She also argues that the Judge did not properly weigh
the evidence regarding the nature of the foreclosure proceeding.  She states that she is not refraining
from making mortgage payments for an improper reason.  Rather, she is not doing so because it is
not clear who the actual mortgagee is.  However, the Judge stated explicitly in his Analysis that
Applicant was proceeding in good faith in the litigation.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption
that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  Neither has she demonstrated that the Judge mis-
weighed the record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01735 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2010).
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 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).  See also 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.”
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
4
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board