KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s failure to make a finding regarding the conflicting evidence of the amount
of Applicant’s monthly remainder of discretionary income was error.  The error is harmless in
this case, given Applicant’s failure to contact his creditors.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-07502.a1
DATE: 12/05/2012
DATE: December 5, 2012
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-07502
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 22, 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 September 17, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F.
Foreman 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 decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
decision. 
The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is 43 years old.  He is currently
married to his third wife.  Applicant testified that his financial problems began in 2005, when his
second wife left him.  Applicant was out of town when she left, and she took all the household
furnishings and a car.  Everything was titled in Applicant’s name.  He let his creditors repossess the
household furnishings and two cars.  He sold his house.  Applicant underpaid his federal income
taxes for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.  Applicant made a payment agreement, withdrew money from
his 401K account, and paid the delinquent taxes for 2005, 2006, and 2007.  Applicant paid the
balance owed on the delinquent 2008 taxes in April 2012, resolving the debt.  Applicant made no
payments on a $3,188  jewelry store account until June 2012, when he accepted an offer to settle the
debt for $599.  He paid the settlement amount in June 2012.  Applicant owes $8,104 and $7,325
respectively, on two car loans.  After his wife left him in 2005, he surrendered both cars to the
dealers, and the amounts due are the deficiencies after the cars were sold.  Applicant has not
contacted the creditors since 2005.  He testified that he does not want to contact the creditors on the
car loans until he has enough cash on hand to pay or settle the debts. 
Applicant cannot borrow more money from his 401K until he pays off his current loan,
which he expects to pay off in September 2013.  Her has not sought financial counseling or explored
the possibility of credit consolidation.  He has not considered a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  He is
making minimum monthly payments on two credit card accounts.  He has not incurred any
additional delinquent debts.  Two 2012 financial statements list Applicant’s net monthly remainder
after expenses of $1,785 and $328, respectively. 
The Judge reached the following conclusions:  Applicant has displayed an inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations.  Applicant’s
delinquent debts originated in 2005, but the two debts that he retired were only recently resolved.
The two car loan debts remain unresolved.  Although the debts other than the tax delinquencies
occurred under circumstances unlikely to recur, his dilatory response to the jewelry store debt and
his lack of action regarding the two delinquent car loans are sufficient to cast doubts on his current
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
Applicant asserts that the Judge’s decision overstates the amount of personal income he and
his current wife have available after monthly expenses are taken care of.  He states that when his
1Hearing Transcript at 42-45.
3
wife’s expenses are included, they have, at most, a couple hundred dollars available to them per
month to put toward outstanding debt.  Applicant essentially testified to this issue at the hearing.
During his testimony he offered, and the Judge appeared to acknowledge, the fact that when his
wife’s expenses were considered, approximately seventy percent of the $1,785 figure stated as a
monthly remainder was consumed in additional monthly expenses for the wife.  The Judge then
made the observation that, given these facts, Applicant and his wife actually had a couple of hundred
dollars left over at the end of the month.1  In his decision, the Judge does not make a definitive
finding regarding Applicant’s end-of-month discretionary income.  He simply recites the evidence
of one personal financial statement listing the $1,785 figure, and a later personal financial statement
indicating that the remainder was $328.  After citing to the representations made in the two pieces
of evidence, the Judge makes no finding as to which figure he views as accurate, nor does he reject
the accuracy of either figure.  His failure to make a finding on this point was error, given the fact
that there was ample evidence in the record, which he appeared to acknowledge, indicating a
reasonably accurate monthly figure.
The Board concludes, however, after reviewing the record and the Judge’s decision, that the
error is harmless.  Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the Judge did not overstate the amount of
Applicant’s monthly remainder, since he made no finding on the matter.  The Judge’s decision does
not indicate that his analysis or his ultimate conclusions were dependent on, or affected by, the
amount of monthly discretionary income available to Applicant.  Rather, the Judge emphasized the
degree of contact with creditors when engaging in his mitigation analysis.  He indicated that it was
Applicant’s failure to contact the jewelry store creditor until 2012, and Applicant’s failure to contact
the car loan creditors at all, that were the primary basis of his conclusion that doubts about
Applicant’s judgment and reliability were unresolved. The analysis portion of the decision focuses
on Applicant’s lack of action to resolve the debts in question, as opposed to a discussion about his
ability to pay.  The Judge’s analysis is reasonably supported by the record evidence.        
Applicant states that he has continually tried to take care of his financial obligations.  The
Board construes this argument as an assertion by Applicant that he has mitigated the government’s
security concerns and that the Judge should have concluded likewise.  Once the government presents
evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.  The
presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security
clearance decision.  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).  Applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, or 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 made sustainable findings that Applicant had neglected a number of
substantial debts over a lengthy period of time.  As indicated in a preceding paragraph, the Judge’s
4
conclusion that Applicant chose to ignore these debts over a considerable length of time was central
to his analysis.  The Judge noted that two of these debts remain unresolved.  He adequately
discussed why, given these facts, the disqualifying conduct established under Guideline F was not
mitigated.
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
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
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 Judge’s decision 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: Jean E. Smallin                   
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board