KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s assertions that he has been unable to reach his creditor are not sufficient to
rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-01509.a1
DATE: 01/29/2015
DATE: January 29, 2015
In Re:
-----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-01509
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 June
16, 2014, 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 E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
2
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On November 13, 2014, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 failed to consider all of
the evidence in the record; whether the Judge mis-weighed the evidence; and whether the Judge’s
adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under
Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s
decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal.  Applicant
has worked for his current employer, a Defense contractor, since late 2013.  A high school graduate
who has taken some post-secondary courses, he served in the U.S. military.  Married, Applicant has
two adult children and two minor children.
In 2006 or 2007, Applicant co-signed a student loan for a friend.  Applicant did not monitor
his friend’s payments but assumed they were being timely made.  At some point, he discovered that
she was not making payments, so he contacted her.  She told him that she was working with the
creditor.  Applicant claims that he got in touch with the creditor himself, though there is no
corroboration for this.  The loan is in collection and the balance exceeds $25,000.
In his clearance interview, Applicant advised that he did not know when the debt became
delinquent.  He did not dispute the debt but has done nothing about it, as he does not consider it to
be his.  This interview occurred after he had contacted one of the three credit reporting agencies to
state that he had not been informed that the debt was delinquent.
The Judge’s Analysis
In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge cited to evidence that Applicant had
not disputed the legitimacy of the debt and had done nothing to resolve it because he believes that
it is not his.  The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions applied.  In the whole-
person analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s educational background, his military service, and other
things.  He stated that there is no corroboration for Applicant’s claim to have inquired with the
creditor about the loan. The Judge characterized Applicant’s conduct as having abdicated his
responsibility.
Discussion
In an effort to clarify what he believes are ambiguities in the record, Applicant cites to
favorable evidence, such as his having held a clearance for a number of years, his service in the
military, and his belief that his friend had been making payments on the loan.  He states that he had
3
not been able to get in touch with the person who owns the debts.  Applicant’s appeal brief 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).  Neither is it sufficient to show that the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-00173 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2014).  Applicant states that his job requires a clearance.
However, we are not able to consider the impact that an unfavorable decision may have on an
applicant.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13180 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 21, 2013).
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
Signed: James E. Moody                    
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board