KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In evaluating an applicant’s intent a Judge should consider the omissions or false
statements in light of the record as a whole.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-05607.a1
DATE: 09/05/2014
DATE: September 5, 2014
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-05607
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
September 17, 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
2
E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On June 27, 2014, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Wilford H. Ross 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 erred in finding that his
omissions from the security clearance application (SCA) were deliberate 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 seeking a security clearance in connection with his employment by a Defense
contractor.  His SOR alleges delinquent debts totaling over $54,000.  The debts are for judgments
levied against him, medical expenses, telephone services, credit cards, etc.  Several of these debts
were turned over to collection agencies and/or charged off by the creditor.  Applicant presented no
evidence of financial counseling.  He experienced unemployment off and on (for a total of about 8
months) between 2008 and 2011.  He has been employed since early 2012, however, and has a
monthly remainder of about $2,000.  The SCA contained several questions about finances.
Applicant answered “no” to three of them: whether there were any judgements against him, whether
any of his debts had been turned over to collection agencies, and whether any of his debts had been
charged off or cancelled.  These “no” answers were false, in light of the evidence summarized in the
preceding paragraph.  The Judge found that these omissions were deliberate, stating that it is not
reasonable to believe that Applicant was unaware of the extent of his financial problems.  Applicant
submitted no evidence about the quality of his work performance, nor did he present any character
references.  The Judge stated that he was not able to examine Applicant’s demeanor or credibility
in person, insofar as he had elected a decision without a hearing.
The Judge’s Analysis
In concluding that Applicant had failed to mitigate the concerns in his case, the Judge cited
to evidence that Applicant’s financial problems went back as far as 2002, but, with a couple of
exceptions, his SOR debts remained unresolved at the close of the record.  He stated that, despite
evidence of unemployment, a circumstance beyond his control, Applicant had not demonstrated
responsible action in regard to his financial problems.  The Judge stated that Applicant failed to
corroborate his claims of debt repayment.   He also stated that Applicant’s claim that he merely
overlooked the questions in the SCA “strains credulity.”  Decision at 9.  
Discussion
Applicant claims that the Judge erred in finding that his omissions from the SCA were
deliberate.  We examine a Judge’s findings to see if they are supported by “such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
3
evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See also ISCR Case No. 12-04540 at 6 (App.
Bd. Mar. 19, 2014).  In evaluating an applicant’s men rea, a Judge should consider the omissions
or false statements in light of the entire record.  Id.  In this case, the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s
claims of simple mistake were not credible is supportable, given the extent of his financial problems.
We give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  We also note Item
8, an affidavit prepared by Applicant in connection with a clearance adjudication in 2002.  In this
document, he asserts that he “did not intentionally omit debts from the security form . . .  I didn’t
mention anything other than the car repossession, because I had just simply forgotten about all the
other things.  There is no reason that I would deliberately omit or hide information, as I’m well
aware that the government would have access to my credit history.”  That he had previously been
questioned about omissions from an SCA undercuts his claims of mistake or oversight, as does the
extent of his financial problems.  We find no error in the challenged finding.
Applicant cites to evidence of his military career, his having held a clearance for many years,
and steps he has taken to address his problems.  Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to rebut
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 11-09160 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2013).  The Judge’s conclusions about a paucity of mitigating
evidence were consistent with the record before him and support his adverse decision.  Applicant’s
arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.
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: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board