KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-09391.a1
DATE: 08/05/2013
DATE: August 5, 2013
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-09391
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 24, 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)
2
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On April 30, 2013, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Thomas M. Crean 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 decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings
In 2008, Applicant experienced financial problems due to the economic downturn.  His
income was cut in half, and his monthly bills exceeded his income.  He has delinquent debts totaling
$17,881, mostly from credit cards.  He hired a credit counseling law firm but, after an additional
drop in income, he decided to address his financial problems himself.  Applicant has presented
evidence of settlement agreements for three of his debts, but he has not presented evidence of
payments.  Moreover, he has not corroborated his claims to have paid or arrived at settlement
agreements for other debts.  In the Analysis, the Judge noted the effect that the economic slump had
on Applicant’s finances.  However, he concluded that Applicant had failed to demonstrate
responsible action regarding his debts or to demonstrate a track record of debt resolution.
Discussion
Applicant cites to his evidence of debt resolution.  The Judge discussed that evidence in his
decision, but he plausibly explained why he concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to meet
Applicant’s burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09329 at 3 (App.
Bd. Mar. 18, 2013).  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                
3
                    William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board