1Decision at 1.  The SOR is undated.
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s argument consists, on the whole, of a disagreement with the weighing of
the evidence.  We find no reason to believe that the Judge failed property to apply the whole-
person concept, Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-14723.a1
DATE: 10/03/2014
DATE: October 3, 2014
In Re:
-----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-14723
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James Q. McDermott, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
January 8, 2014,1 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 July 17, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant was denied due process;
whether the Judge’s findings of fact contained errors; and whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we
affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts that Applicant attributes to the
combined effects of the crash of the real estate market and to a divorce.  He owned a house (H1) and
built another one (H2).  However, he was not able to maintain two mortgages and found that he
could not sell either house.  In 2009, Applicant’s wife filed for a divorce, which remained pending
at the close of the record.  Both houses went into foreclosure.  The Judge found that the deficiency
resulting from the foreclosure sale of H1 had been forgiven.  However, he found that Applicant
remained liable on the deficiency regarding H2.  Other debts include a judgment in favor of a
contractor who had performed work during the construction of H2, credit cards, cable TV services,
medical expenses, etc.  The Judge found that Applicant was resolving the judgment and that one of
the credit card debts was expected to be forgiven.  However, the remaining debts were outstanding.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s unaddressed debts totaled in excess of $155,000 and
formed the bulk of the SOR allegations.  Although noting evidence of circumstances outside
Applicant’s control that affected his financial situation, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not
demonstrated responsible action for these remaining debts.2  He noted the favorable character
references Applicant had submitted in his own behalf but concluded that the evidence that Applicant
had submitted was not sufficient to meet his burden of persuasion regarding mitigation.
Discussion
Applicant represented himself at the hearing.  On appeal he argues that he “was not capable
of adequately advocating for his own interest and didn’t understand the significance of certain
evidence.”  Appeal Brief at 2.  
We note that, prior to the hearing, Department Counsel provided Applicant with a letter in
which he advised him of his right to hire counsel and to submit evidence, among other things.  This
letter provided insight into the kind of evidence that applicants sometimes submit, such as character
statements, receipts, and other documents pertinent to the allegations.  Applicant Exhibit (AE) A.
DOHA also provided pre-hearing guidance advising Applicant of his various rights, and he received
a copy of the Directive as well.  At the hearing the Judge questioned Applicant on his qualifications
to represent himself and questioned him from time to time in order to clarify Applicant’s testimony.
Applicant submitted numerous documents during his case in chief, addressing at least some of the
allegations in the SOR. The record demonstrates that Applicant was properly advised of his rights
and that he presented his evidence in mitigation with reasonable skill.  Pro se applicants are not
expected to conduct themselves like lawyers, but they should take reasonable steps to protect their
rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-02371 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2014).  The record shows that
Applicant presented his case with a reasonable degree of competence, given his pro se status.  He
was not denied the due process afforded by the Directive.
Applicant challenges the Judge’s findings regarding the extent to which he has resolved his
delinquent debts.  He argues that he owes no deficiency from the foreclosure sale of H2, due to the
state’s anti-deficiency statute.  He also argues that he had resolved more of his debts than the Judge
found, asserting that his actual remaining debts total a little less than $66,000.  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 evidence in the same record.”
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
We conclude that the challenged findings are supportable, given the record that was before
the Judge.  In any event, a Judge should consider not only the extent to which debts have been paid,
but also the circumstances underlying those debts that impugn an applicant’s good judgment.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-06975 at   (App. Bd. Apr. 19, 2012).  Even if the Judge’s findings contained
errors, it is not likely that they exerted a significant effect on his overall decision.  The Judge’s
material findings of security concern are supported by substantial evidence or constitute reasonable
conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App.
Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).   
Applicant cites to record evidence that he submitted in his own behalf, including his
character statements, his good security history, and the effects of the economic downturn and his
divorce on his finances.  Applicant also submits evidence from outside the record, that we cannot
consider.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-04554 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).  Applicant’s argument
on appeal is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in
the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014).  He argues that the
Judge engaged in a piecemeal analysis of the record, failing to examine Applicant’s circumstances
in their totality.  Applicant’s argument consists, on the whole, of a disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, as Department Counsel argues in his Reply Brief.  We find no reason to
believe that the Judge failed properly to apply the whole-person concept.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
12-05232 at 4 (App. Bd. Jun. 30, 2014).  
Applicant’s brief cites to other Hearing Office cases that, he argues, support his effort to
maintain his clearance.  We give these cases due consideration as persuasive authority.  Hearing
Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 11-10178 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2013).  Each case must be decided on its own merits.
The cases Applicant has cited are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge improperly weighed
the evidence or otherwise reached conclusions that ran contrary to the evidence. 
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors.  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: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board