KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s reliance on the 2003 bankruptcy is not persuasive since the delinquent
debts at issue post date the bankruptcy by years.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-01664.a1
DATE: 01/17/2014
DATE: January 17, 2014
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-01664
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Cory Williams, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
20, 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
1Numerous documents prepared by the Government relate that Applicant elected to have the case decided on
the written record.  Applicant’s actual election, however, is not contained in the record.
2
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  On October 31, 2013, after
considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.1  Applicant
appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings and conclusions
were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the
Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision.
The Judge found: Applicant is 43 years old.  He was married from 1989 to 2009 and he
remarried in 2010.  In 2003, Applicant had his delinquent debts discharged in a Chapter 7
bankruptcy.  He and his first wife were struggling financially when they had their debts discharged.
They had financial problems dating back to 1997.  Applicant indicated that a $452 debt alleged in
the SOR was paid.  He provided a copy of a statement from the creditor showing that he had
established a payment agreement with the creditor in May, 2013.  The letter shows that Applicant
was delinquent on his $100 installment payment and shows a balance owed of $401.  Applicant did
not provide documents from the creditor confirming he made monthly payments or paid the debt in
full.  Applicant admitted a $437 debt alleged in the SOR, and indicated he planned to satisfy the
account.  Applicant admitted a $15,825 debt alleged in the SOR for the loan balance on a
repossessed vehicle.  He indicated he had contracted the creditor and was offered two payment
options, but is waiting for the creditor to provide him with an amount he can afford to pay.
Applicant did not provide any additional information to show he has started making monthly
payments to resolve the debt.  Applicant’s personal financial statement shows he has a net monthly
remainder of $2,675.  It does not show that he is making payments toward any of the delinquent
debts.     
The Judge concluded: Applicant has debts discharged in bankruptcy and has three delinquent
debts totaling approximately $16,600 that he is unable or unwilling to pay.  His history of financial
problems is likely to recur and casts doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.
Applicant’s divorce was beyond his control.  His poor financial decisions were within his control.
It has been almost four years since Applicant’s divorce.  He has not had any periods of
unemployment.  He has a net monthly remainder of $2,675 but is not making any payments toward
his delinquent debts.  Applicant did not provide any information regarding how he spends the
remainder of his income.  There is no evidence to show Applicant was acting responsibly under the
circumstances.  At this time, there are not clear indications his financial problems are being resolved
or under control.  Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline  F.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains factual assertions that go beyond the record below.
Applicant attached a number of documents to the brief, some of which post date the Judge’s decision
and are not contained in the record below.  The Board cannot consider new matters on appeal.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
2“[T]he individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]”
3
Applicant argues that the Judge failed to consider all the record evidence.  He does not
specify which parts of the record he asserts the Judge did not consider, stating only that the Judge
erred in not considering “mitigating documentary evidence” and by not considering “the documents
that were submitted.”  A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless
she specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009).
Applicant fails to overcome this presumption.  A review of the Judge’s decision indicates that she
specifically discusses several of the documents Applicant submitted for consideration, including one
that resulted in a favorable finding from the Judge on one SOR allegation.  Also, without a better
description from Applicant as to what he thinks the Judge ignored, the Board is unable to ascertain
the specific evidence Applicant claims the Judge ignored.  An appealing party must provide
specificity in its claims of error to allow the Board to engage in reasoned decision-making when
carrying out its appellate responsibilities.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0429 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 9,
2001).    
Applicant argues that the Judge erred when she found that Applicant had a net remainder of
$2,675 per month after satisfying ongoing living expenses other than his delinquent debts.
Applicant argues that the correct figure is approximately $525, much of which went toward expenses
related to his children.  Applicant’s argument relies on matters outside the record.  The Judge’s
finding is supported by a financial statement prepared by Applicant that is included in the record.
There is no other evidence in the record that refutes the representations made on the financial
statement.  Applicant has not established error.
Applicant points to his 2003 bankruptcy and argues that his filing of it is a mitigating
condition under ¶ 20(d)2 of Guideline F.  This argument lacks merit.  The Board has held that an
applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option, such
as bankruptcy, in order to claim the benefit of ¶ 20(d).  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 4
(App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004).  Also, on the record in this case, the relevance of Applicant’s 2003
bankruptcy filing is attenuated for purposes of mitigation in that it has no bearing on the debts listed
in the SOR, the delinquent status of which post dates the bankruptcy by many years.  
Applicant argues that the relevant evidence mitigates the government’s concerns.  The
presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security
clearance decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25157at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2008).  As the trier
of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence
outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App.
Bd. Nov. 7, 2007).  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability
to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge
weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).  Applicant’s appeal brief
essentially argues for an alternate interpretation of the record evidence.
4
In this case, the Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant has not taken steps to
reasonably address three outstanding debts, despite the availability of a significant monthly income
remainder.  The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of proof of establishing  his
claims that he is responsibly addressing his debts.
In support of his appeal, Applicant points to decisions by the Hearing Office, which he
argues support his request for a favorable determination.  Hearing Office decisions are binding
neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor the Board.  See ISCR Case No. 11-04176 at 2 (App. Bd.
Dec. 18, 2012).  The Board finds nothing in the cited cases establishing that the Judge’s decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  “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).  Therefore,
the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffry D. Billett                
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
5
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board