KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record
evidence.  Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  The
Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of the Directive.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 11-02512.a1
DATE: 08/14/2012
DATE: August 14, 2012
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-02512
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 January 11, 2012, 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 11, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher
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 all of
the record evidence; whether the Judge mis-weighed the evidence; whether the Judge’s whole-
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(a): “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment[.]” Unpaid debts are a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, cannot be considered as having occurred
so long ago as to warrant the application of this mitigating condition.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01309 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 29, 2010).  
2Directive, 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[.]”
3Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(c): “the person has received or is receiving financial counseling . . .”
4 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(e): “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due
debt . . . and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve
the issue[.]”  The Judge found in Applicant’s favor regarding one debt that Applicant claimed not to owe.  He noted that
the debt does not appear on Applicant’s most recent credit report and found the pertinent entry on an earlier credit report
to be confusing.  Decision at 6.  
2
person analysis was erroneous; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s
decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant works for a Defense
contractor as an aircraft loadmaster.  He is married, with an adult child from a previous marriage and
two adult stepchildren.  He held a clearance during his 16 years of Air Force service.  
The SOR alleges a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge, two mortgage foreclosures, and seven
delinquent debts, for credit cards, utility services, etc., totaling about $23,303.  Applicant contends
that his divorce from his first wife led to the bankruptcy, due to high attorney fees.  After he left the
Air Force, Applicant worked in real estate.  He purchased several houses and then rented them, using
the rental amounts to finance the purchase of additional properties.  However, the real estate market
collapsed in 2005, and Applicant became unable either to make his mortgage payments or sell his
properties.  In addition to the debts listed in the SOR, Applicant owes money to the IRS for unpaid
taxes pertaining to tax years 2005 to 2007.  Applicant has about $320,000 in home equity.  He has
not sought financial counseling except for having sought information about loan modification.  The
Judge noted Applicant’s testimony that he had contacted a creditor concerning a credit card debt and
that he did not owe certain SOR debts.  However, the Judge also found that this testimony was not
corroborated.
In the Analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant’s mortgages are both recent and multiple and
that the other delinquent debts are ongoing.1  Given that fluctuations in the price of real estate are
foreseeable risks, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated that his mortgage
foreclosures arose from circumstances beyond his control.2  The Judge noted Applicant’s lack of
financial counseling3 and stated that Applicant had not corroborated his dispute of certain of his
debts.4   In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s service to the Air Force, but he
concluded that Applicant’s financial track record left him with doubts about Applicant’s worthiness
for a clearance. 
3
Applicant’s brief cites to evidence of his divorce, the real estate crash, and his efforts to
resolve his debts.  To the extent that he is contending that the Judge failed to consider the cited
evidence, we note that a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-05485 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2011).  The Judge discussed Applicant’s
divorce, the problems with the economy which had an impact on his financial situation, and
Applicant’s testimony about his efforts at debt resolution and/or dispute.  Applicant has not rebutted
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.  Neither has he demonstrated
that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that it arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-11345 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010).  The Judge’s whole-person analysis
complies with the requirements of Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2 (a), in that the Judge considered the
totality of Applicant’s conduct in reaching his decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-00141 at 2
(App. Bd. Apr. 28, 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.’”  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: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board