KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge had considered all of the
evidence.  The Judge’s material findings were based upon substantial evidence.  
CASE NO: 11-01085.a1
DATE: 06/25/2013
DATE: June 25, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-01085
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Sheldon I. Cohen, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 10, 2012, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 15, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings are
erroneous; whether the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence; and whether the decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings 
The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a Government contractor.  She holds a
bachelor’s degree as well as a master’s and is working on a dissertation for a doctoral degree.  She
paid for her own education and owes $130,000 in student loans.
She experienced periods of unemployment and underemployment between 2007 and 2009.
She found permanent employment in 2010.
In 2002, Applicant purchased a home for about $136,000.  She was making $47,000 a year
and her monthly payments were between $800 and $1,000.  Her aunt, a realtor, assisted her with the
transaction.  Within six months of the home purchase, Applicant bought five other properties
secured by mortgages totaling $600,000.  Applicant stated that she relied on her aunt’s advice in
buying these properties.  She bought them through her aunt’s business associate.  She stated that she
never looked at any loan documents, home appraisals, or lease applications and never put any money
down.  She attended no mortgage closings and did not know that the loans were secured by
adjustable rate mortgages.  
She testified that her purpose was to buy distressed properties, use the money received at
closing to fix them up, rent them out and then sell them when they had appreciated.  The Judge
found that this testimony was not consistent with a statement she made during a clearance interview,
to the effect that she wanted to make a “quick turnaround profit” from her properties.  Decision at
3.
Although one of the properties sold for a profit, the others went into foreclosure.  Applicant
acknowledged that she owed deficiencies resulting from the foreclosure sales, presenting no
evidence of attempts to contact creditors or resolve these debts.  After she exhausted the funds she
had received at the closings, her salary and rental income were not enough to pay the mortgage
debts.  Her problems became worse when the mortgage rates increased.
Applicant stopped making mortgage payments on her home, which also was foreclosed.  She
had rented this house, but a tenant caused substantial damage to it.  
In her security clearance application (SCA), Applicant stated that in March 2003 she took
a seven-day cruise, in March 2005 she took a five-day cruise, and in September of that year she took
another cruise.
Applicant’s aunt and the aunt’s business associate were convicted in federal court of fraud
arising from their real estate transactions.  Applicant was not prosecuted and testified that she was
a victim of fraud by her aunt. 
3
The Judge’s Analysis
Concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised Guideline F security concerns, the Judge
found that none of the pertinent mitigating conditions were established by the evidence.  He stated
that Applicant’s financial problems were ongoing and that she failed to demonstrate responsible
action, both in the acquisition as well as the resolution of the debts.  He stated that even if she were
a victim of fraud, Applicant showed poor judgment by entering into real estate ventures that
exceeded her financial capacities.  Her failure to review any loan documents, property appraisals,
or rental agreements constituted an abrogation of financial responsibility.  He stated that Applicant
had not demonstrated a track record of financial responsibility.
Applicant’s real estate venture was also alleged under Guideline E.  The Judge noted that
Applicant no longer associates with her aunt, that she had consulted a lawyer, and that she had
cooperated with federal agents investigating the aunt’s fraudulent activities.  However, the Judge
found that she had not mitigated the concerns under this Guideline, concluding that the totality of
Applicant’s circumstances were such as to cast continuing doubt upon her judgment and reliability.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge ignored evidence that demonstrates that her financial
problems arose from circumstances outside her control, for example her periods of unemployment,
illness, and evidence that she was a victim of fraud.  The Judge made detailed findings about her real
estate investments, including Applicant’s testimony that she had been a victim of fraud.  He also
made findings about her unemployment.  A Judge is not required to make findings about all of the
evidence in the record, which would be a practical impossibility.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
11-07447 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 11, 2013).  Rather, her brief appears to be a disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to demonstrate error.  
Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact.  For example, she contends that
the Judge misstated the evidence regarding her cruises and that the Judge erred by misstating the
circumstances surrounding her foreclosures, arguing that there was no evidence showing any
outstanding deficiencies on the investment properties.  The Judge’s finding about the cruises appears
to have been drawn from Applicant’s answer to the SCA.  Government Exhibit (GE) 1 at 27.  The
Judge did not misstate the contents of this answer.  Moreover, the Judge’s finding that Applicant
owed deficiencies on the four foreclosure homes was consistent with her testimony at the hearing.
Tr. at 173-174.  Even if the Judge’s findings contain errors, Applicant has cited none that likely
exerted an effect on the outcome of the case.  The Judge’s material findings of security concern are
based upon substantial record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06659 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 22,
2012).
Applicant cites to a 2008 Appeal Board decision which she argues is “on all fours” with her
case.  In the cited case, the Judge had found that Applicant was “acting responsibly” and had “taken
steps to resolve the delinquent debts with the mortgage holder . . .”  We remanded that case to
4
resolve the discrepancy between those (sustainable) findings and the Judge’s adverse conclusions.
The decision in this case has no such discrepancy.  Compare ISCR Case No. 07-15321 at 3 (App.
Bd. Dec. 15, 2008).  
After considering Applicant’s appeal arguments in light of the record as a whole, we
conclude that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The 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 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