KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant admitted most of the SOR allegations.  Other record evidence includes
credit reports, Applicant’s answers to interrogatories and his security clearance application.  The
Judge had sufficient record evidence to conclude that Guideline F security concerns had been
raised.
CASENO: 11-09333.a1
DATE: 11/20/2012
DATE: November 20, 2012
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-09333
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(a): “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts[.]”
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(c): “a history of not meeting financial obligations[.]”
3Directive, 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 current reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment.”  
4Directive, 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[.]”
5Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d): “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts[.]”
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On September 14, 2011, 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 decision on the written record.  On July 31, 2012, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 properly applied the
Disqualifying Conditions; whether the Judge properly applied the Mitigating Conditions; whether
the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence; 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 is a high school graduate
who has attended a community college.  Married with two children, he was in the Army from 2000
to 2010.  He has held a security clearance since 2004.  Applicant’s SOR alleges 19 delinquent debts,
including a home foreclosure in the amount of $109,198.  Applicant provided documentary evidence
of his resolution of several of the debts, although the unresolved debts include the mortgage.
Applicant provided no evidence of unemployment or of any other reason for his financial problems.
He advised that, during periods of deployment while he was in the military, his wife handled the
family accounts.  After expenses, the monthly net remainder of Applicant’s income is $5,895.  
In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that two Guideline F Disqualifying Conditions applied
to Applicant’s circumstances–19(a)1 and 19(c).2  In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, she
stated that his debts were ongoing and recent, and that there is no evidence to show that the debts
do not cast doubt upon Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.3  She also stated
that the record does not support the application of Mitigating Condition 20(b).4  She extended
application of 20(d)5 to those debts which Applicant had demonstrated that he had resolved, but, on
the whole, she was not able to conclude that Applicant’s financial problems are being resolved or
6Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(c): “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]”  
3
are under control.6  She concluded that Applicant had not presented sufficient information to
mitigate the security concerns in his case.  
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that the above-referenced
Disqualifying Conditions applied to his circumstances.  To the extent that he is arguing that the
evidence did not raise security concerns, we note that Applicant admitted most of the allegations in
the SOR, with explanations.  In addition, the Government presented evidence, including credit
reports, Applicant’s answers to interrogatories, and his security clearance application, which
contains Applicant’s answers to questions about his financial condition.  All in all, the record is
sufficient to raise security concerns under Guideline F.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-00925 at 3
(App. Bd. Jun.26, 2012).  Applicant cites to record evidence, including his military service and his
wife’s having handled the finances during his extended deployments.  To the extent that he is
arguing that the Judge did not consider this evidence, we note that a Judge is presumed to have
considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07219 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep.
27, 2012).  In this case, the Judge discussed the evidence which Applicant has cited, but she
reasonably explained why she concluded that he had not met his burden of persuasion as to
mitigation.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record
evidence.  Applicant’s brief relies to a substantial extent on evidence from outside the record,
including documents which post-date the Judge’s decision.  This is evidence that we cannot
consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1. 29.  
We have considered Applicant’s argument about the Judge’s application of the mitigating
conditions.  Based upon the record as a whole, and bearing in mind that Applicant bears the burden
of persuasion, we find no error in her analysis.  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: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
4
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board