KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant has been diligent, and has paid off or otherwise
resolved several debts.  The Judge does not explain how applicant’s conduct was not responsible. 
Adverse decision reversed.
CASENO: 09-08462.a1
DATE: 05/31/2011
DATE: May 31, 2011
In Re:
----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-08462
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Archibald J. Thomas, III, Esq.
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 7, 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 March 9, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall,
Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive
¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we
reverse the decision of the Judge.
Facts
The Judge found that Applicant is a senior test engineer for a Government contractor.  He
served on active duty in the Navy from 1978 until 1989 and as a reservist thereafter until 2003.  He
is married and has three minor children.  Applicant holds a Master’s degree in management.
Applicant has accumulated several rental properties since 1997.  He and his wife were
familiar with the area in which the properties were located.  They managed their properties
competently, and Applicant was a “diligent” landlord.  Decision at 2.  They purchased three
properties in the early to mid-2000s, after which the housing market declined.  Additionally, it
became harder to rent the properties.  Applicant began having to make mortgage payments out of
his own personal funds.  He acquired about $80,000 in personal debt to keep his mortgage loans in
good order.
He sold one of his delinquent properties and paid off the debt on another through a
foreclosure action.  However, three of the properties are still the subject of delinquent debts.
Although they are in foreclosure, the debts had not been resolved as of the closure of the record.
In addition to his mortgage debts, the SOR listed three others, for medical expenses and
utility bills.  These debts have been satisfied.
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant was succeeding in
paying down the $80,000 debt he acquired in attempting to keep his mortgage payments current.
He stated that the circumstances underlying Applicant’s debts were outside Applicant’s control and
that “he is actively and successfully working to satisfy” them.1  He also concluded that Applicant’s
“diligence, his strategies, and his demonstrated commitment to honor his debts” merit favorable
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d): “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts[.]”  
3
application of Mitigating Condition 20(d).2  Decision at 10.  Once the remaining properties have
been sold through foreclosure, “Applicant credibly states that he is prepared to satisfy any resultant
balances that may be owed, using the same methods he is currently using to satisfy the debt incurred
in trying the save the properties.”  Decision at 11.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated:
Applicant is a highly credible and honorable man with a track record for industry and
diligence.  He is responsibly addressing the debt incurred in trying to save his real
estate investments from foreclosure.  Through no fault of his own, however,
Applicant’s ultimate liability on the three properties has yet to be calculated because
the properties have yet to be auctioned for resale . . . Lacking finite terms regarding
his ultimate debt, whether he has exhibited responsible behavior . . . cannot be
discerned.  Given these considerations, there is presently insufficient evidence to
mitigate Guideline F security concerns.  Decision at 12.
Discussion
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong
presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After the Government presents
evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those
concerns.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  In rendering a final decision, an “agency must examine the
relevant data and articulate 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)). 
In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are erroneous, the Board will review
the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate
a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts
found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment;
it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs
contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference
of opinion.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).
Applicant contends that neither the record viewed as a whole nor the Judge’s findings
support the Judge’s adverse decision.  He points to record evidence of Applicant’s diligence and
good business judgment, that Applicant is current on his bills, and that Applicant has acted
responsibly in regard to his debts.  “[T]here is no reason to believe that the Applicant would not
4
continue his diligence and applied proven methods to ameliorate his situation in the event the three
remaining properties result in a deficiency judgment against him.”  Applicant Brief at 6.  
We find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.  As a general rule, an applicant is not required
to be debt-free nor to develop a plan for paying off all debts immediately or simultaneously.  All that
is required is that an applicant act responsibly given his circumstances and develop a reasonable plan
for repayment, accompanied by “concomitant conduct,” that is, actions which evidence a serious
intent to effectuate the plan. Depending on the facts of a given case, the fact that an applicant’s debts
will not be paid off for a long time, in and of itself, may be of limited security concern.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 08-06567 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct 29, 2009).  
In the case before us here, the Judge found and the record demonstrates that Applicant has
paid off or otherwise resolved several of his debts.  While three remain, Applicant’s case for
mitigation does not consist simply of promises for future action.  The gist of Applicant’s argument
on appeal is that he has demonstrated a track record of debt repayment.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008).  The Judge does not explain what he believes that Applicant
could have done that he has not already done to resolve his problems, or why Applicant has not
demonstrated responsible behavior in regard to his debts or satisfactory resolution.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 08-06567, supra, at 3.  Moreover, the record, and the Judge’s unchallenged findings,
support a conclusion that Applicant has “initiated a good-faith effort” to resolve his financial
difficulties.  
The unchallenged facts of this case support Applicant’s argument that he has been diligent
in addressing his financial difficulties, that he has a reasonable plan for paying off his debts, and that
he has demonstrated a serious intent to effectuate that plan.  The Judge’s ultimate adverse decision
runs contrary to the weight of the record evidence.  Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse decision is not
sustainable on this record.  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is REVERSED.    
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
5
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board