KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Directive does not authorize the Board to consider the adverse impact of an
unfavorable decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-00508.a1
DATE: 01/23/2015
DATE: January 23, 2015
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-00508
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
April 24, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
2
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 October 31, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR alleges several financial problems.  For example, she failed timely to file
her Federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2008, 2011, and 2012.  She stated that she had
filled out the forms but had forgotten to mail them.  After the hearing she applied to the IRS and to
her state for repayment plans, but as of the close of the record she did not have an approved plan.
In addition to her tax problems, Applicant has other delinquent debts totaling about $11,500.  Much
of this is for a car loan that Applicant had co-signed.  The car was repossessed about a year ago.  She
testified that she had established a payment plan with this creditor, though she did not corroborate
this testimony.  She did show that she had resolved three SOR debts totaling less than $500.  
Applicant testified that her financial problems resulted from her assisting close and extended
family members.  She has no budget and does not regularly track her income and expenses.  
Applicant has been a Federal employee for 19 years.  She has held a clearance since 2001
and has worked for her current employer since 2012.  She has received and completed security
training and briefings.  Her performance report shows that she exceeds expectations.  She also
submitted character references attesting to her trustworthiness and her dedication to family,
community, and job.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to evidence that a substantial portion of Applicant’s delinquent debts
consisted of unpaid Federal and state income taxes.  He stated that her laudable desire to assist
family members did not constitute a circumstance outside her control.  He also stated that Applicant
had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to her debts.  The Judge concluded that
Applicant’s failure to pay her taxes raised significant concerns about her fitness to hold a clearance,
suggesting that she may similarly fail to discharge her security obligations.  In the whole-person
analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s years of experience as a Federal contractor, her candor about
her financial problems, and her having held a clearance for over 20 years.  He found that this
favorable evidence was not enough to mitigate the security concerns raised by Applicant’s financial
delinquencies.
Discussion
3
Applicant’s brief cites to her favorable evidence, such as her having completed security
training and her clean security record.  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.
13-00142 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 15, 2014).  Neither do these arguments show that the Judge mis-
weighed the evidence.  Applicant implies that loss of her clearance has resulted in the loss of her job.
The Directive does not allow us to consider the adverse impact of a unfavorable decision.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 11-13180 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 21, 2013).  Applicant states that her duties do not
require her to examine classified information.  Our jurisdiction is limited to those issues set forth
in Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  We have no authority to address the extent to which an applicant may or
may not actually have access to classified information during the course of their official duties.
Applicant appears to challenge the Judge’s finding about the length of time she has held a clearance,
asserting that it was 28 years.  We note that the Judge stated that she had held one since 2001 in his
Findings of Fact but in his whole-person analysis that she had held one for over 20 years.  We find
no reason to believe that this inconsistency exerted any effect on the Judge’s overall decision,
however, and conclude that it is harmless.     
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: Jeffrey D. Billett                
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board