KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J
DIGEST: In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge stated that he had failed to
demonstrate responsible action in regard to his debts.  She also concluded that Applicant’s
criminal record evidenced a pattern of unreliable conduct.  The Judge’s conclusions are
sustainable on this record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 12-07158.a1
DATE: 10/01/2013
DATE: October 1, 2013
In Re:
----------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-07158
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
April 1, 2013, 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 J
(Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On July 23, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of
2
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 of Fact 
The Judge found that Applicant is a 34-year-old high school graduate who has received an
associate’s degree in business.  He was married from 2002 to 2004 and has one child from that
marriage.  He has two children from his current marriage and two others from previous relationships.
He pays child support for the children who do not live in his household.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts.  These are for medical treatment, student loans,
child support arrearages, etc.  Two of his debts have been reduced to judgment.  He has made some
payments toward the student loans, but none of his other debts have been paid or resolved.  He
attributes his financial problems to periods of unemployment.  He has had difficulty making child
support payments.  When he would get behind, the state would suspend his driver’s license.
Applicant stated that he had an agreement with the mothers of his children to pay them directly.  He
did not get a modification of his child support orders, however, so that when he failed to make
payments as required it would trigger the suspension of his license. 
Applicant has hired a credit consolidation attorney, who will contact creditors and develop
a repayment plan.  The attorney sent letters to the creditors about two weeks before the hearing.  At
of the close of the record, Applicant was awaiting their responses.   
Applicant also has a history of criminal activity.  In addition to several charges of driving
with a suspended license, he has also been charged with receiving stolen property, destruction/
concealment, etc., of property subject to a security interest, and aggravated assault resulting from
an altercation with his wife, which charge was dismissed.  He was found guilty of the other two
offenses mentioned above, as he was with the numerous driving offenses.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised security concerns under both
Guidelines alleged in the SOR.  In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge stated that
he had failed to demonstrate responsible action in regard to his debts and that he had failed to
demonstrate good-faith efforts to pay them.  The Judge extended some credit to Applicant for having
hired the attorney, although she noted that there was no evidence that Applicant had ever received
financial counseling.  She concluded that Applicant’s criminal record evidenced a pattern of
unreliable conduct.  She noted in particular that he was repeatedly having to pay fines for his driving
offenses which could have been better spent in addressing his child support obligations or other
3
debts.  She ultimately concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to
mitigation.
Discussion
Applicant cites to record evidence that he believes to be favorable to him, such as his having
hired a lawyer, the effect of his unemployment on his financial condition, his reasons for having
expended funds on renovating his home, and the circumstances underlying his driver’s license
suspensions.  The Judge discussed the evidence that Applicant has cited.  Her ultimate decision was
consistent with the record that was before her.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence.  Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge weighed the
evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
09-04696 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 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: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
James E. Moody                          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
4
Member, Appeal Board