KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Given Applicant’s longstanding awareness of his delinquent debts and his dilatory
efforts at repayment, the Judge’s weighing of the evidence was not arbitrary, capricious or
contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-13626.a1
DATE: 11/07/2013
DATE: November 7, 2013
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-13626
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
February 27, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
2
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 10, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of
the evidence in the record and 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
Applicant is an employee of a Federal contractor.  He has completed some courses toward
a bachelor’s degree.  He has served in the U.S. military, retiring as an E-7.  Applicant has held DoD
security clearances since 1979, the year he entered active duty.  There is no evidence that he has ever
violated security regulations or procedures.
Applicant married his current spouse in 1998.  Because of Applicant’s deployments while
serving in the military, his spouse handled their finances.  In 1999, Applicant and his spouse filed
for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.  
In 2001, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA), disclosing his
bankruptcy.  During an interview he discussed several consumer credit accounts totaling over
$50,000 that had been included in his bankruptcy action.  During this interview Applicant advised
that he realized that he and his spouse had to live within his means, avoiding unneeded credit and
limiting debt to that which was essential and which could be managed within their budget.  
Applicant subsequently acquired more delinquent debt, mainly for credit cards.  He has
experienced several instances of unemployment.  In his response to the SOR, he stated that he had
been delinquent in paying his debts “out of my own stupidity.”  Decision at 7.  After the date of the
hearing, Applicant met with a debt management company.  He agreed to make an initial payment
of $263, with subsequent monthly payments of $213, in exchange for which the company would
attempt to negotiate with Applicant’s creditors and make payments on his behalf.  Applicant
presented no evidence showing which of his debts were included within this plan.  Applicant’s
spouse has a couple of delinquent debts of her own and is negotiating repayment.  His ability to
make the $213 payments is dependent on his spouses income.  
Applicant has described himself as “not the most financially savvy person.”  Id. at 8.  He
now understands that he and his spouse undertook more credit card debt than they could afford.
Indeed, they used credit cards to make payments on other credit cards.  
Applicant is active in the Boy Scouts of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and a
religiously-affiliated charitable organization.  His fellow workers and the vice-president of his
employer are aware of his financial problems.  He enjoys a good reputation for trustworthiness.
1“Q: . . . Have you, at this point, made any payments at all on any of these debts?  A: No, sir . . . It’s my fault.
Q: Now . . . it looks like several of these debts . . . date back to 2007 when you were gainfully employed . . . Can you
explain why, at a time where you had been gainfully employed for several years, why you weren’t able to pay any of
these debts down? . . . A: I don’t, I’m just–no excuse.”  Tr. at 47-48.  
3
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial circumstances raised Guideline F security
concerns.  The Judge also concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate those concerns. In doing
so, she cited to evidence that Applicant had made no payments on any of his debts as of the close
of the record.  Although noting that Applicant’s debts were affected by circumstances beyond his
control, his periods of unemployment, she concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated
responsible action in regard to them.  She stated that Applicant’s SOR debts originated after he had
gained full employment and that he had stopped paying at least some of them while he held a full-
time job and was receiving a military paycheck.  She noted that, even after having been hired by his
current employer, Applicant had failed to address even relatively small delinquencies that he should
have been able to manage.  She cited to Applicant’s bankruptcy action, to his 2001 SCA and
investigation, and to his 2011 clearance interview, all of which put him on notice that delinquent
debts were matters of security concern.  However, despite this notice, he did not begin to develop
a plan for paying off his debts until after the date of the hearing.  She stated that, his recent payment
plan notwithstanding, Applicant had failed to demonstrate a track record of debt resolution.  In the
whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s evidence that he had permitted his wife to
handle the finances, resulting in his being unaware of the problems at issue in this case.  The Judge
stated that the evidence demonstrated a level of inattention to debt obligations that was not
consistent with the judgment expected of someone who holds a clearance.  
Discussion
Applicant takes issue with the Judge’s treatment of the mitigating conditions, citing in
particular to her statement that he had not demonstrated a track record of debt repayment.  He argues
that when she held the record open for him to submit additional evidence, it was not with the
understanding that he had to show that he had been on his debt repayment plan for a specified period
of time.  We have examined the transcript of the hearing.  While the Judge gave Applicant three
weeks after the hearing to submit evidence that he had contacted an attorney to set up a payment
plan, she did not state or intimate how much weight she would extend to this evidence or that it
would be dispositive of Applicant’s security concerns.  Given the facts that were before her,
particularly Applicant’s longstanding awareness of the significance of his delinquent debts and his
dilatory efforts at repayment, her treatment of the repayment plan was reasonable.1  Applicant has
not demonstrated that the Judge weighed this evidence, or any of the other evidence, in a manner
that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-01970 at 3 (App. Bd.
Oct. 29, 2010), to the effect that a party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the record or
an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to show that the
weight that Judge assigned to the evidence was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
4
Applicant cites to evidence, and the Judge’s finding, that he has held a clearance for many
years without incident or concern.  While this was evidence the Judge was required to consider,
along with all the other evidence in the record, Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-12204 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 22,
2013).  The Judge made a finding about Applicant’s good security record and discussed this finding
in her whole-person analysis.  However, her overall adverse decision was consistent with the record
that was before her.  The Government need not wait until an individual has mishandled classified
information to make an unfavorable clearance decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-00435 at 3
(App. Bd. Jan. 22, 2009).  Security clearance adjudications are predictive in nature, and it is
foreseeable that persons with prior good records may nevertheless engage in conduct or undergo
circumstances that raise doubts about their future judgment or reliability.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
03-04927 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 5, 2005).  
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: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Separate Opinion of Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra’anan
I agree with the majority analysis of the dispositive issues in this case.
5
Applicant highlights an interesting situation which appears occasionally in DOHA
proceedings and is worthy of consideration.  He notes that the Judge left the record open for him to
produce evidence of his commencing arrangements to pay his debts.  He further notes that there was
no stipulation at the hearing as to how much debt needed to be repaid or by what date.
Applicant has put his finger on a problem which a Judge may sometimes have at the end of
the hearing.  There is a sound reason to leave the record open so that the Applicant can have every
opportunity to develop a favorable record, even if it may not be likely that they can successfully
mitigate the security issues at hand.  On the other hand, applicants choosing to avail themselves of
the additional time may take actions that have serious consequences beyond the context of their
current security clearance adjudication.  Thus, on occasion the additional time after the hearing was
used by an applicant to commence legal proceedings such as bankruptcy or to return a passport to
a foreign government.   Such cases have been appealed by the applicants when the Judges concluded
that the post-hearing actions were insufficient to mitigate the totality of the government’s security
concerns.  Of course, at the end of the hearing, a Judge has not yet had time to integrate and analyze
all the evidence that has been presented.  And no Judge can analyze evidence that has not yet been
presented.
Having noted the issue, I cannot claim to have a ready resolution.  Each case is different and
to an extent each Judge has discretion in approaching procedural issues.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan            
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board