KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The record supports a conclusion that Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-06157.a1
DATE: 11/20/2012
DATE: November 20, 2012
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-06157
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 April 27, 2012, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On September 28,
2012, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 record evidence; and whether the Judge’s
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under
Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we  affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an administrative
specialist for a Defense contractor.  She has about $25,000 in delinquent debt.  She has attributed
her financial problem to her husband’s unemployment.  Although he lost his job in 2009 and has not
been able to find other employment, Applicant and her husband went on a tropical cruise in late
2009.  In the Analysis, the Judge resolved one of the SOR allegations in her favor, but he found
against her for the remaining six.  In concluding that Applicant  had not met her burden of
persuasion as to mitigation, the Judge cited to a paucity of record evidence showing a track record
of debt repayment.  He also cited to Applicant’s cruise, which occurred five months after her
husband’s unemployment, as undermining her case for mitigation.
Applicant cites to record evidence, such as her efforts at debt repayment, her recently having
been approved for social security payments, etc.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the
evidence in the record, and Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  Neither has
she demonstrated that the Judge’s decision runs contrary to the weight of the record evidence.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-03403 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 23, 2012).  The record supports a conclusion that
the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  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 decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
3
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board