KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to demonstrate a nexus between his breakup with his girlfriend and
other circumstances beyond his control and his debt problems.  Evidence that Applicant has
credit card debt that is growing contradicts the Judge’s conclusion that his financial problems are
under control.  Favorable decision reversed.
CASE NO: 11-13999.a2
DATE: 06/23/2014
DATE: June 23, 2014
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-13999
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
March 22, 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 hearing.
On August 28, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  On February 3, 2014,
the Appeal Board remanded the Decision to the Judge to address certain errors.  On March 10, 2014,
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(a): “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not case doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment[.]”  
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibility under the circumstances[.]”
2
the Judge issued his remand Decision, again granting Applicant a clearance.  Department Counsel
again appealed pursuant to the Directive.
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s favorable
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we reverse the
Judge’s favorable security clearance decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact  
Applicant’s SOR listed 10 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $79,593.  These debts
included unpaid Federal income taxes.  He has a payment plan with the IRS, which originally
covered tax years 2007, 2008, and 2009.  Taxes for the first of these years have been paid.  The plan
has been amended, however, to include taxes owed in 2010 and 2011.  As of the close of the record,
Applicant owed the IRS $10,012.77.  He is paying $175 a month on this plan.  Applicant’s tax
problems originated in errors he committed in preparing his own taxes.  He also admitted that he
made budgeting errors that contributed to his tax problems.  He now utilizes a tax preparation
service to ensure that his taxes are correctly filed.  Applicant had delinquent taxes owed to his state
for tax years 2007, 2008, and 2009.  He has satisfied these debts.
Applicant also owes delinquent debts on seven credit cards, in amounts ranging from $1,374
to $21,880.  Applicant has entered into an agreement with a debt resolution company, and these
credit card debts are being resolved.  He also owes $82 for a cell phone.  He has attempted to resolve
this debt, but has not had success.  The account appears to be closed.
Applicant’s financial problems began when he had a “bad breakup” with his girlfriend.
Decision at 4.  She lost her job, and he took on all the expenses of the relationship, including her
mother’s medical and subsequent funeral expenses.  He has also experienced unexpected dental
expenses.  Applicant attempted to resolve his problems himself, but he was not successful.  He lives
frugally and has demonstrated that he the financial ability to pay both his current indebtedness, as
well as to pay off his delinquent debts.  He acknowledged that in the past he has provided financial
assistance to family and friends to the extent that was not in his best interest. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Mitigating Conditions 20(a)1 and (b)2 apply to Applicant’s
circumstances.  Regarding (b), he stated that Applicant’s problems resulted for the most part from
circumstances outside his control and that he acted responsibly in addressing his debts.  Although
3Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(c).
4Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d).  
3
Applicant has not received financial counseling, the Judge concluded that “there are clear indications
that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]”3 He also concluded that Applicant had
“initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]”4  
Discussion
Department Counsel contends that the Judge’s decision failed to establish a mitigating nexus
between events in Applicant’s life and his financial problems.  He also maintains that because the
evidence does not provide a clear picture as to the cause or causes of Applicant’s delinquent
indebtedness, it is not possible to conclude that Applicant’s financial problems, once solved, will
not reoccur, Department Counsel also argues that Applicant did not begin to address his overdue
debt until recently and this does not constitute evidence that Applicant acted reasonably and
exercised good judgment.  The Board finds these arguments persuasive.
The standard in security clearance decisions “is that a clearance may be granted only when
‘clearly consistent with the interests of national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518,528 (1988).  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified
information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”   Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  In
deciding whether the Judge’s rulings or conclusions are erroneous, the Board will review the Judge’s
decision to determine whether: it does not examine record evidence; it fails to articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgement; it
fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs
contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference
of opinion.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  
Department Counsel asserts that the dates on which Applicant’s financial obligations became
delinquent are a significant aspect of the case for purposes of ascertaining the significance and
relationship between purportedly mitigating events and the delinquent indebtedness.  The Board
agrees.  Department Counsel notes that Applicant’s federal tax delinquencies covered a period
between 2007 and 2011, the commencement of which was two years after the breakup with his
girlfriend, an event that the Judge cites as a principal cause of the indebtedness.  Department
Counsel also notes that Applicant’s state tax delinquencies covered a period from 2007 to 2009 and
his consumer credit accounts first became delinquent in 2008 and individual accounts continued to
become delinquent until 2011.  Given the time frames, with a significant gap between the purported
cause of the financial difficulties and the onset of the various debt arrearages, there is no evidence
to explain how the breakup with the girlfriend caused the problems.  Applicant’s testimony merely
cites the breakup as a cause of his monetary problems without going into detail as to how it caused
the trouble.  
4
Additionally, the Judge cites tax preparation issues as another mitigating source of
Applicant’s trouble.  Tax preparation was a matter within Applicant’s control.  Given this, the
Judge’s decision does not adequately explain why Applicant’s tax preparation issues were a matter
in mitigation.  Similarly, the decision to attend funerals out of state was a matter within Applicant’s
control.  Bills arising from medical issues may have been matters of necessity, but, as with the other
purportedly mitigating events cited by the Judge, there is no explanation as to how they caused
Applicant’s sizable debt arrearages.  There is insufficient evidence to support the Judge’s application
of Mitigating Condition ¶ 20(b).  
Regarding the other Guideline F mitigating conditions, Department Counsel argues that there
was insufficient evidence to support the Judge’s application of the mitigating conditions in light of
the contrary evidence in the same record.  Department Counsel’s arguments have merit.  Department
Counsel correctly points out that there is nothing to support the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s
indebtedness occurred under circumstances unlikely to recur, since the evidence does not establish
with any specificity how Applicant’s delinquencies arose.  The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s
efforts at debt resolution were made in good faith is undercut by evidence that he did not initiate
attempts at repaying his debts until after he applied for a security clearance and did not hire his debt
resolution company until January, 2013.  The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s debt problem is
being resolved or is under control is contradicted by the fact that his credit card debt continues to
grow, and the amount of payments made on the debt to date have not substantially lessened
Applicant’s debt load.  The objective evidence of amounts owed and the amount Applicant is paying
per month indicate that he will be engaged in debt reduction longer than the three years he has
projected.
Once disqualifying conditions are found applicable, Applicant bears the burden of
establishing mitigation.  The Judge’s conclusions concerning mitigation run contrary to the weight
of the record evidence and fail to consider important aspects of the case.  Viewed as a whole, the
record does not support a conclusion that Applicant has mitigated the Guideline F concerns
consistent with the standard set forth in Egan.  The Judge’s favorable findings under this Guideline
are not sustainable.       
    
 
5
Order
The Decision is REVERSED.   
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                 
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Dissenting Opinion of Administrative Judge James E. Moody
I disagree with my colleagues’ resolution of this case.  The Judge’s findings, viewed in light
of the record as a whole, are sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that Applicant’s security-
significant conduct is being resolved.  I believe that the record supports a whole-person conclusion
that Applicant has developed a reasonable plan for debt repayment and that he has demonstrated a
serious intent to effectuate that plan.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-08462 at 3 (App. Bd. May 31,
2011).   We need not agree with a Judge’s decision to find it sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
07-15696 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009).   
 
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board