KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s explanation for his adverse decision—Applicant’s failure to address her
debts until recently—is reasonable given is unchallenged findings of fact.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 10-08604.a1
DATE: 12/12/2012
DATE: December 12, 2012
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-08604
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
1Directive, 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[.]”  
2Directive, 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 November 4, 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 hearing.  On September 12, 2012, 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 issue on appeal: 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 findings pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: Applicant
works for a Defense contractor.  Married with two children, she holds a B.A. degree in management.
Applicant has significant delinquent, unpaid debts, for such things as student loans, medical
expenses, cell phone service, a judgement against her, etc.  The SOR alleged 26 debts, and the Judge
amended the SOR to include another.  These debts accumulated over a number of years, many of
them due to her husband’s periods of unemployment or under-employment.  During these periods
she was the sole provider for the family.  She herself experienced job layoffs during most of the
1990s.  She enjoys a good reputation for her trustworthiness and has received certificates of
appreciation from her employer.
In the Analysis, the Judge noted evidence of Applicant’s and her husband’s unemployment,
which were circumstances beyond Applicant’s control.  He also credited her with paying off many
of the debts alleged in the SOR and with making arrangements for paying others.  He resolved
twelve of the SOR debts in Applicant’s favor.  However, he noted that a number of her debts had
been settled only after the hearing, despite their having been overdue for many years.  Therefore,
he could not extend favorable application of mitigating condition 20(b) to the remainder of
Applicant’s debts.1  The Judge also concluded that he could not extend favorable application of
mitigating condition 20(d),2 given the recency of Applicant’s efforts to resolve debts that had been
long overdue.  He stated that her dilatoriness in resolving her debts left him with significant doubts
as to her suitability for a security clearance.
Applicant cites to evidence of her debt payments and to her circumstances, including her and
her husband’s employment difficulties.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence
in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-01027 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 9, 2012).  The Judge made
3
findings concerning these matters and discussed them in the Analysis.  However, his explanation
for his adverse decision–Applicant’s failure to address her debts until relatively recently–is
reasonable, given his extensive unchallenged findings.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption
that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.
Applicant raises SOR ¶ 1.aa.  The Judge entered a formal finding in Applicant’s favor
regarding this paragraph.  The Judge’s finding renders moot Applicant’s appeal arguments on this
issue.  See ISCR Case No. 00-0277 (App. Bd. May 9, 2001).  
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 decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y, Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board