KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s findings, including that Applicant had deliberately falsified his
application, were based upon substantial record evidence.  Applicant failed to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  We give deference to a Judge’s
credibility determination.  Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judge or
on the Appeal Board.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-01607.a1
DATE: 04/09/2015
DATE: April 9, 2015
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-01607
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
20, 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)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 31, 2014, after the hearing, Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings of fact
contained errors 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 45 years old.  He received an undergraduate degree in 1992 and an advanced
degree in 1999.  His wife has a daughter who lives with them, and Applicant has two children from
a previous marriage.  This is Applicant’s first effort to obtain a security clearance.
Applicant has several delinquent debts, for such things as communication services, medical
expenses, and student loans.  He has recently paid several accounts.  He experienced two months
of unemployment in the past and has had to pay child support, which reduced his disposable income.
He estimated that his student loans total about $140,000, including interest.  Applicant stated that
he neglected to pay his student loans due to other financial obligations.  He acknowledged that,
regarding the loans, “he got busy and put it on the back burner.”  Decision at 3.  He also admits that
he has not been diligent about monitoring his credit.  
Applicant first obtained student loans in 1993.  At some point prior to 2011, the Department
of Education (DoED) started proceedings to garnish his wages.  Applicant believed that the amounts
that the DoED was seeking to recover were not accurate.  There is nothing in the record to show any
financial counseling.  Applicant has credit cards that are “almost maxed out.”  Id. at 3.  He pays
about $25 on them a month.  He also stated that he borrows money each month from his parents
because he has a negative monthly remainder.  Applicant’s wife has just taken a part-time job.  His
annual salary is $115,000.  The Judge noted Applicant’s contention that some of his debts were no
longer listed in his credit reports.  
Applicant enjoys a good reputation for the quality of his work performance.  A witness, who
has known Applicant for two years, finds him to be reliable.  Another witness, a personal friend,
regards him as reliable and trustworthy.  Applicant’s wife testified that he handles the financial
matters for the family.  She did not know about the reason for the security clearance hearing.
In completing his security clearance application (SCA), Applicant answered “no” to two
questions: (1) whether, within the previous seven years, any of his debts had been turned over to
collection agencies and (2) whether he was currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt.  These
answers were untrue.  The Judge quoted Applicant’s comment at the end of his SCA about his
finances: “all valid (emphasis added) current loans and financial obligations are being paid.  There
are past financial obligations that are no longer delinquent because they are either disputed, closed,
[charged-off], or unreported (but none of these obligations are current delinquencies.”) Decision at
4.  The Judge stated that she found Applicant’s explanation to be lacking in credibility.  She found
that he knew about the status of his student loans because the DoED had been seeking wage
garnishment and Applicant had requested a hearing before that agency.  She noted Applicant’s
citation to various ethical principles associated with his profession and to his character evidence. He
1See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15: “Conduct involving . . . lack of candor . . . can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information . . . The following will normally result
in an unfavorable clearance action . . . refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of
investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security . . .
determination.”  
3
argued that this evidence demonstrated his honesty.  However, she concluded that, given Applicant’s
level of education and experience, he was not being candid when he answered the questions as he
did.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge reiterated her conclusions about Applicant’s lack of candor.  She found his
explanations to be “disingenuous,” stating that they did not convince her that Applicant is reliable
or trustworthy.  Decision at 6.  She also noted evidence that Applicant’s student loans remained
unpaid until 2013, precluding a conclusion that they occurred so long ago that they no longer cast
doubt upon Applicant’s trustworthiness.  She stated that he had not acted responsibly in regard to
his debts and that he is currently paying his student loans under threat of garnishment.  In the whole
person analysis, the Judge noted evidence that Applicant had paid some of his debts.  She cited to
his level of education, his professional responsibilities, and his evidence of good job performance.
However, she stated that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns in his case.
Discussion
Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact.  He denies that he deliberately
falsified his SCA.  He also claims that the Judge erred in finding that he still owed several of his
debts, insofar as some of them no longer appear on his credit reports.  We examine a Judge’s
findings of fact 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.  In evaluating an applicant’s mens rea, a Judge must consider the applicant’s
answers in light of the record as a whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00142 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct.
15, 2014).  
Concerning the deliberate nature of Applicant’s SCA response, we note the Judge’s reliance
on Applicant’s maturity, education, and professional experience, which made it unlikely that he
actually believed that charged-off or unreported debts were no longer owed or that a basis to dispute
the amount of a debt rendered the obligation itself invalid.  Her analysis of this issue focused in large
measure upon the student loans.  Given Applicant’s admission that he had neglected these loans,
his testimony that he should have answered the questions differently (Tr. at 39), and his 2011 request
that the DoED provide a hearing regarding the debt, the record supports a conclusion that Applicant
could not reasonably have believed that he was providing full, frank, and truthful answers when
completing his SCA.1  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-01075 at 6 (App. Bd. Jul. 26, 2011).  Moreover,
concerning Guideline F, evidence that debts are no longer contained in credit reports is not a reason
4
for finding that they have been resolved, as Applicant asserted in his brief.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
98-0111 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 1998).  The Judge’s material findings of security concern are
supported by substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the
evidence.  Applicant has not cited to any harmful error in the Judge’s findings of fact.
Applicant’s citation to his favorable evidence, such as his character witnesses and his efforts
at debt resolution, are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.13-00828 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 26, 2015).  Neither
has he demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01509 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 29, 2015).  Despite
Applicant’s argument to the contrary, the record as a whole supports the Judge’s conclusion that his
presentation lacked credibility.  We give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive
¶ E3.1.32.1.  Applicant has cited to other Appeal Board cases which, he contends, support his effort
to obtain a clearance.  Those cases are distinguishable on their facts from the case at issue.  For
example, Applicant cites to the Board decision in ISCR Case No. 02-28917 (App. Bd. June. 10,
2005).  In that case the applicant admitted the indebtedness but was unsure of specifics.  In the case
before us, Applicant’s answers to the SCA constituted denials of indebtedness.  
The Judge has articulated a satisfactory explanation for her decision.  Unsatisfied debts are
a continuing course of conduct for the purpose of DOHA adjudications.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
10-11083 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2012).  A Judge may consider not only the extent to which debts
have been paid but the circumstances underlying them as well.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-00046
at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 10, 2012).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15, supra, at note 1.  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.”
5
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