KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed
CASENO: 12-01977.a1
DATE: 12/30/2013
DATE: December 30, 2013
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-01977
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  
June 4, 2013, DoD 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 decision
1The Judge resolved three allegations of delinquent debts, along with another citing to a 2004 discharge in
Chapter 13 bankruptcy, in Applicant’s favor.   
2
on the written record.  On October 29, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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 
Applicant served with the U.S. military for 20 years, retiring in 1993.  He is presently
employed by a Government contractor and is seeking a security clearance in connection with his job.
Of the six delinquent debts alleged in the SOR, the Judge resolved three against Applicant.1
These three were for collection or charged-off accounts.  He told the investigator that his wife had
managed the family finances and, in 2010, she spent more than the couple earned.  She contacted
a debt repayment firm and entered into a contract with them to resolve the couple’s financial
problems.  Applicant told the investigator that he was not aware of the status of the debts being
resolved by this plan.  He did provide corroboration for his claim to be participating in such a plan,
along with documents showing cleared payments to the firm.  Applicant and his wife have a total
net monthly income of $6,727, although their debt and expense payments exceed their income by
$671.  They have real estate assets of $225,000, a savings account worth $8,000, cars and boats
worth $25,000, and savings of $101,000 in a 401(k) account.  
The Judge’s Analysis 
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial situation raised concerns under Guideline
F.  As stated above, she resolved three of the allegations in Applicant’s favor.  In explaining why
she concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the remaining debts, she cited to evidence that
they  are unresolved, as well as to the absence of financial counseling.  The Judge stated that
Applicant’s negative income to expenditure ratio demonstrated a lack of responsibility and that
Applicant had failed to demonstrate that he has the resources to make consistent payments on his
delinquent debts.  Although the Judge noted evidence of circumstances outside Applicant’s control
that affected his financial problems (tenants unable to pay rent, loss of overtime opportunities, and
a son’s loss of employment, which impaired the son’s ability to assist in mortgage payments), she
concluded that his circumstances overall did not demonstrate responsible action in regard to his
debts.  
Discussion
3
Applicant has attached evidence to his brief, some of which was included in the record, for
example documents pertaining to the contract with the debt repayment company.  He argues that he
is current on the debts that formed the basis of the Judge’s adverse decision.  To the extent that
Applicant is contending that the Judge either failed to consider this evidence or failed properly to
weigh it, we resolve these issues adversely to Applicant.  The Judge made findings about the debt
repayment plan and discussed the evidence in the Analysis.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
11-08831 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 6, 2013).  Moreover, a disagreement with a Judge’s weighing of the
evidence or the ability to argue for an alternative interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to
demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13626 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2013).  
Some of the evidence Applicant has cited was not contained in the record, for example a
statement by his son regarding the amount he contributed to the mortgage.  We cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.      
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
Signed: James E. Moody            
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board