1
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant alleges he was denied due process because he was unable to present a
witness.  The witness was unable to get onto the base where th hearing was held.  The Judge
permitted Applicant to submit a letter from the witness instead.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-02422.a1
DATE: 09/06/2011
DATE: September 6, 2011
In Re:
----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-02422
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
1The transcript and other evidence demonstrate that Applicant’s debts were largely for credit cards.  The SOR
also alleged two debts for delinquent mortgages.  The Judge resolved these two allegations in Applicant’s favor.  
2“Administrative Judge: Now, if it’s so important for you to pay the debts, why are you willing to go along with
a settlement that’s only 20 percent on the dollar? [Applicant]: Well, because according to my counsel . . . the original
companies have already written off that debt.  They’re not looking to recoup that.  It’s the collection agencies that would
negotiate down to a lower amount.  Administrative Judge: . . . . I’m not saying–you may be able to get away with less.
I’m asking you: If it’s a moral responsibility, as you seem to indicate, to make sure you pay these, then how is it okay
that you’re only paying 20 percent if you owe them a lot more than that? [Applicant]: If I could afford to pay them the
full amount, I would be very happy to do that . . . Administrative Judge: Is it possible that if you sold your house, you
would be able to pay these all in full? [Applicant]: Yes.  It is possible . . . I guess the . . . situation as I see it is that the
original lenders no longer own the debts.  I’m not sure what they would even do if I was able and offered to pay back
the full principal.  Administrative Judge: . . . . The creditors haven’t told you they’re willing to accept this, have they?
. . . . [Applicant]: That’s true, sir.  Administrative Judge: Okay, so you don’t know how much the creditors are willing
to accept at this point; is that correct? [Applicant]: That’s correct, sir.”  Tr. at  84-87.  
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 22, 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 June 8, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul
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 Applicant was denied due process;
whether the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence; whether the Judge erred in his
application of the pertinent mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis
was erroneous.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is seeking a security
clearance in connection with his employment by a DoD contractor.  Divorced, he has a son.  He
holds three Master’s degrees: in Business Administration, Education, and Divinity.
Applicant has several delinquent debts, for taxes owed to the Federal Government and for
other things.1  As stated above, Applicant divorced his wife.  He paid her $524,000.  After that, his
business began generating less income.  In 2008, he withdrew $30,000 from his retirement account
to help pay for expenses due to his loss of income.  He hired an attorney to assist him in resolving
his financial problems, but the attorney was disbarred before he could attend to Applicant’s legal
needs.  He has contacted another attorney, but he has not yet paid him a fee.  He hopes to pay it from
a refund he expects from the state bar in compensation for lost retainer paid to the previous attorney.
It is not certain that he will receive this refund.
He expects that his new attorney, once formally engaged, will work out arrangements with
his creditors to pay off his debts for 20% of their worth.  He testified that he believed the moral thing
to do was pay off his debts in full.  When asked why he planned on paying the debts cents on the
dollar, he did not provide a reasonable response.2
3Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”   
4Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d): “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts[.]”  
3
Applicant has around $800,000 in home equity.  This could be used to pay off most of
Applicant’s creditors.  He stated that he was not planning to sell the house for 24 months, so that his
son could have a stable place to live.  However, the son had spent the previous year in boarding
school learning to ski, and planned to do so the next academic year as well.  
Applicant enjoys a good reputation for his character and trustworthiness.
In his analysis, the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s divorce and business downturn, which
were beyond his control.  However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated
responsible action in regard to his debts,3 nor had he initiated a good-faith effort to resolve his
debts.4  Accordingly, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not succeeded in mitigating the
security concerns arising from his financial problems.  
Applicant has raised the due process issue.  Specifically, he states that he was not able to
present a witness.  Rather, he was permitted to submit a letter from the witness.  He contends that
the Judge did not extend sufficient weight to the letter.
Applicant intended to call a character witness.  However, the witness was unable to get onto
the Navy base where the hearing was being held.  The Judge permitted Applicant to submit a letter
from the witness as an alternative to his testimony.  Tr. at 34.  Under the circumstances, there is no
reason to believe that Applicant was denied his right to present evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15
(“The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence . . . and has the ultimate
burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision”).  Moreover, Applicant has not
demonstrated that the Judge weighed the letter in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence, including his
plans for debt repayment, his character evidence, and a summary of his subject interview.  However,
a Judge is not required to discuss every piece of record evidence.  Although Applicant takes issue
with the Judge’s weighing of the record evidence, his presentation on appeal fails to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-12742 at
3 (App. Bd.  Feb. 25, 2011).  
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
4
(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: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board