KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of security concern were supported by substantial record
evidence.  Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 10-01756.a1
DATE: 06/02/2011
DATE: June 2, 2011
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-01756
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 19, 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 April 7, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein
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’s application of the
mitigating factors was erroneous and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.
1“Q: And when you realized that there was nothing you could do to refinance the house or short sell the house,
what did you do at that point?  A: I just, you know, like a lot of people did and have done in this country, they had to
walk away from it.”  Tr. at 40.  
The Judge’s favorable finding under SOR ¶ 1(b) is not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm the decision of the Judge.
The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor who has held a
security clearance for approximately ten years.
The SOR alleged two debts, only one of which is at issue here.  This is $26,780 due on a
mortgage debt in foreclosure at the close of the record.  Applicant had bought the house for his
fiancée to live in.  When they terminated the relationship, she moved out and stopped making
payments.  Applicant also ceased making payments. According to Applicant, interest rate
adjustments caused the payments to increase from $1,800 to $4,000 a month.  He sought a loan
modification, but the request was denied.  Applicant then decided to “walk away” from the debt.1
Decision at 2.  He made no attempts to sell the property.  It was eventually sold through a
foreclosure sale.  He has taken no action to investigate the debt or repay it.  
Applicant earns $1,836 twice a month.  He has approximately $11,000 in a savings account
and $7,436 in a checking account.  His 401(k) is worth nearly $101,000.  
Applicant enjoys a good reputation for trustworthiness, integrity, and job performance.  He
has received a certificate of appreciation from his employer for his contribution to a project.  
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge stated that Applicant’s conduct regarding
the mortgage debt was troubling.  He made no attempt to make a single payment on the mortgage,
has not contacted the creditor since walking away from the debt, and has presented no
documentation  to demonstrate that the debt was satisfied through foreclosure.  Although Applicant
has received counseling, the Judge concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible behavior in
regard to the debt and had presented nothing to show that his problem is under control.  She stated
that Applicant “has not shown himself to be reliable, trustworthy, or exercising good judgment.”
Decision at 6.  Accordingly, she denied Applicant a clearance.
 Applicant challenges the Judge’s statement in the Analysis concerning his not having made
a payment on the mortgage.  He states that this is not true, that, in November 2007, he attempted to
pay $1,800, but the bank wanted the newly adjusted amount of $4,000.  However, when the Decision
is read in the context of the record as a whole, it is clear that the Judge is referring to Applicant’s
conduct after November 2007.  The Judge’s material findings of security concern are based upon
substantial record evidence.  See Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the
contrary evidence in the same record”).
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider favorable record evidence, such as his
having held a security clearance for ten years without incident or concern, his evidence that he lives
within his means, and his evidence of good character and job performance.  While these are matters
which the Judge was required to consider, along with all of the other evidence in the record,
Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in formulating her decision.  Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge weighed the
evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  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,’” 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).  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: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, 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