KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  Applicant
failed to rebut that presumption or to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-00566.a1
DATE: 11/18/2014
DATE: November 18, 2014
In Re:
---------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-00566
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 26, 2014, 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 13, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
2
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
security clearance decision.
The Judge made the following findings: Applicant is 49 years old.  He has a record of income
tax delinquency.  Although he and his spouse filed annual returns, they paid only $200 of $2,963
in federal taxes owed for 2008.  They underpaid their tax obligations between 2009 and 2012 and
amassed a tax debt of $31,043.  In 2009, Applicant and his wife entered into the first of yearly
installment agreements with the IRS to repay the late taxes, but missed monthly payments on at least
two occasions.  Even with ongoing payments, they owed delinquent federal taxes of $25,362 (shown
alternatively as $23,362) as of January 2014.  By the end of 2013, Applicant and his spouse also had
a delinquent state income tax liability of $2,263 that they repaid at the rate of $265 per month.  
Applicant retired from a 20 year career in 2007.  He then opened up his own business, which
did not prove profitable.  At the time he ran the business he was able to rely on a pension from his
previous job, which paid $3,516 a month.  In 2008, he began working for a manufacturing firm.  He
and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $231,000 in 2009, $208,000 in 2010, $176,000 in
2011, and 197,000 in 2012.  Applicant and his wife accumulated over $190,000 in consumer credit
debt from 2010 to 2014 and at one point were considering filing for bankruptcy.  They were able to
retire most of this indebtedness, although several of the  accounts were settled for less than the full
balance owed.  Applicant had an $11,582 credit card debt in collection at the end of 2012.  In the
spring of 2014, he had two outstanding charged-off credit card accounts with balances of $4,115 and
$10,340 on his credit record.  Applicant and his spouse are paying less than their full mortgage.
Between the spring of 2012 and the spring of 2014, Applicant and his wife were 30 days late on their
mortgage payments seven times.  As of March 2014, they were making only partial payments on
their mortgage, which was considered $4,018 past due.       
The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant may reasonably have not foreseen
the difficulties in attracting clients for his new business.  However, he was not without income
during this period and the adjusted gross income amounts for him and his wife should have enabled
them, had they handled their finances responsibly, to pay most, if not all, of the taxes they owed.
To a large extent, their financial difficulties were caused by an over reliance on consumer credit,
which they gave priority over paying taxes when due.  Applicant and his wife still owe over $23,000
in past-due federal taxes.  Missed payments to the IRS undermine confidence in Applicant’s
financial judgment.  There is no persuasive evidence that Applicant’s financial situation is currently
under control to the point where he can be counted on to comply with his income tax payment
obligations.  With the large federal income tax delinquency, and evidence of other recent financial
problems (e.g., the late payments on his mortgage), it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant a security clearance at this time.         
Applicant argues that the Judge failed to consider the “totality of the circumstances” of his
case, especially those circumstances that negatively impacted him and led to his financial
difficulties.  He asserts that he acted responsibly under the circumstances by initiating a good faith
3
effort to repay his overdue creditors and resolve his debt.  Applicant has failed to establish error on
the part of the Judge.
A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he or she
specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009).  All
of the factors cited by Applicant on appeal as contributing factors to his financial difficulties were
discussed at some length by the Judge.  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.
In this case, the Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had a  history of not paying
income taxes in a timely fashion, and those delinquencies were the result of excessive use of
consumer credit.  She noted that despite a recent pattern of regular payments toward tax delinquency
reduction, at the time of the hearing Applicant still had an amount of overdue tax indebtedness that
actually exceeded his original liability.  The Judge also considered signs of continuing trouble,
including missed payments to the IRS and irregularities in Applicant’s payments on his mortgage.
Given these facts, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still
ongoing.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007).  A review of the Judge’s
decision reveals that, regarding Guideline F, the Judge listed the potentially applicable mitigating
conditions and then discussed several components of those factors in her analysis.  The Judge found
in favor of Applicant as to one of the two Guideline F allegations.  However, the Judge offered a
detailed explanation as to why the disqualifying conduct under Guideline F was not fully mitigated.
The Board finds no reason to believe that the Judge did not properly weigh the evidence or that she
failed to consider all the evidence of record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-06622 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul.
2, 2012).  
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.
4
Order
The decision of the Judge 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