KEYWORD: Guideline F, Guideline e
DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged findings are supported by substantial record evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-01814.a1
DATE: 02/17/2012
DATE: February 17, 2012
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-01814
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 July 5, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
1 All the allegations under Guideline E and some of the allegations under Guideline F were withdrawn by
Department Counsel and resulted in favorable formal findings by the Judge.  No favorable findings are at issue in this
appeal.
2
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).1  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 7, 2011, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal:  whether the Judge’s conclusions are
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s
unfavorable security clearance decision. 
The Judge made the following findings of fact:  Applicant is 42 years old.  She is married.
She has four children from earlier relationships.  She receives $2,100 monthly child support
payments.  She served in the Army for 13 years.  She was separated for medical reasons in 2006.
She had a brief period of unemployment from July to August 2007.  Applicant’s financial troubles
are attributed to raising her children, mostly as a single parent without support from the children’s
fathers.  It was only recently, in January 2011, that she began receiving child support for two of her
children.  She currently makes $82,000 per year and her husband makes $48,000.  She has a $1,200
surplus at the end of the month after paying her expenses.  
Applicant has paid four debts listed in the SOR.  Applicant is making payments on an $895
cable service debt.  Regarding a student loan debt for $6,226, Applicant claims she has recently set
up a payment plan for $200 per month, but she has not provided proof of any payments.  She
incurred a debt of $6,598 when she was in the Army, and this debt is still unresolved.  A credit card
debt in the amount of $1,789 is unresolved.  A debt to the IRS for back taxes in the amount of
$6,480 is unresolved.  A collection account for child care services in the amount of $2,935 is the
subject of a payment plan, and Applicant made two payments in September 2011 for a total of $404.
She did not present any evidence that she sought any form of financial counseling.  
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant accumulated a number of delinquent
debts and was unable or unwilling to satisfy her obligations.  Although some debts have been paid,
Applicant still owes many of her debts, including the larger balance accounts.  Applicant
experienced a brief period of unemployment and was not receiving child support for two children
for a considerable amount of time.  These are conditions beyond her control.  However, in order for
this to be mitigated fully, Applicant must also act reasonably under the circumstances.  Applicant
failed to show that her actions were reasonable since the larger debts remain unpaid and it appears
she has discretionary income to pay these debts.  She produced no evidence of receiving financial
counseling.  Although several debts are paid and she has made installment payments on several more
debts, the remaining debts remain unsettled and unresolved, including her tax debt and student loan
debt.  Therefore, her finances are not being resolved and are not under control.  Her preliminary
attempts to reach settlements with the IRS and her student loan creditor at this late date are
2Tr. pp. 56-57.
3Govt. Exhibit 2.
3
insufficient to support a finding that she has made a good-faith effort to pay or otherwise resolve her
remaining debts.  At this point, Applicant’s finances remain a concern despite the presence of some
mitigation.
 Applicant asserts that the Judge made errors in his findings of fact.  She argues that the
Judge’s finding that Applicant claimed that a debt for $207 (SOR allegation 1.g) no longer appeared
on her credit report was not supported by the hearing transcript.  After a review of the record, the
Board concludes that the Judge’s finding is directly supported by Applicant’s testimony.2  Applicant
states that the Judge erroneously found that there was no evidence of financial counseling.  A review
of the record reveals no such evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary contained in the report
of investigation included in a set of interrogatories submitted to Applicant.3 
Applicant argues variously that: (a) the Judge failed to consider her history of having a
security clearance; (b) the Judge erroneously concluded that Applicant’s finances are not under
control; (c) the Judge failed to fully consider and minimized the impact of her single parenthood and
her dealings with the “deadbeat” fathers of her children; (d) there is a question as to the accuracy
of the credit reports in evidence; and (e) the Judge failed to consider the fact that the Government
withdrew allegations concerning her personal conduct.  Applicant has failed to establish error on the
part of the Judge.
A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he or she
specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009).
Applicant fails to overcome this presumption.  Also, although Applicant’s favorable history as a
holder of a security clearance is a matter that the Judge may consider, and is a matter that can be a
component of a whole-person analysis, there is no requirement for a judge to address that history
in the adjudication of the issues raised in the SOR.  The Judge explicitly discussed in his Decision
the fact that the Government withdrew allegations concerning Applicant’s personal conduct.
Furthermore, Applicant has not articulated how this matter is relevant to addressing the
Government’s concerns about her financial history.       
Applicant questions the accuracy of the credit reports admitted into evidence and questions
the Judge’s reliance upon them.  Her argument fails inasmuch as she does not provide any specificity
as to the errors she is claiming. 
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in concluding that her finances are not under control,
and asserts that the Judge did not give enough weight to the mitigating evidence of her status as a
single mother who only recently began receiving child support payments from her children’s fathers.
As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable
evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at
2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007).  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or
4
an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the
Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).  In this case, the
Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the seriousness of the
disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors.
He adequately discussed why, notwithstanding the presence of evidence in mitigation, the
disqualifying conduct established under Guideline F ultimately remained a security concern.  The
Judge concluded  that Applicant still owes a significant number of her larger debts such that her
financial situation remained unresolved and there was no solid prospect for a resolution of the
situation.  This conclusion is reasonably supported by the record evidence.  
The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
his 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 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).  Therefore, the
Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett            
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board