KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The record of Applicant’s financial problems supports the Judge’s ultimate conclusion. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-01526.a1
DATE: 07/02/2015
DATE: July 2, 2015
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-01526
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Robert A. Garrison, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
6, 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 March 27, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge David M. White 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 adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor.  He retired from the military in 1995 and
has worked continuously since.  Married with four minor children, he and his wife are informally
separated.  Applicant also has two stepchildren.  58 years old, Applicant has held a security
clearance almost all of his adult life.
Applicant’s SOR lists 11 allegations of delinquent debt, although the Judge found that two
of these debts were repeats of two others.  Nevertheless, even after taking this into account, he found
that Applicant’s debts total $21,206.  Applicant admitted all of the debts listed in the SOR.
Although Applicant testified that he did not recall any delinquent debts prior to and during
the investigation of his last security clearance application during 2002 and 2003, Government
exhibits showed several past due accounts that, in 2002, he claimed to have settled or resolved.  
Applicant’s wife handled the finances for the family, and their delinquent debts resulted from
her failure to pay them, without Applicant’s knowledge.  Applicant provided her with sufficient
funds to have made the payments.  Applicant’s wife claimed that depression plus serious problems
involving members of her family caused her to become unable to manage the finances.  Applicant
first became aware of his wife’s failure to pay bills when he discovered a foreclosure notice on his
garage door while he was shoveling snow.
After this discovery, Applicant took over the finances.  In addition, he moved to a separate
residence and initiated divorce proceedings.  In a 2013 interview with a clearance investigator,
Applicant stated that the divorce was prompted by his wife’s infidelity.  He did not mention finances
as constituting a reason for the separation and establishment of two households.
Applicant told his interviewer that he intended to file for bankruptcy as a means of resolving
his debts.  He repeated this intention in an answer to subsequent DOHA interrogatories.  Applicant
and his estranged wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 2014, the petition listing $44,659
in unsecured debts.  Many of these debts were incurred after their separation.  They were discharged
2
later in 2014.  Applicant submitted two documents outlining his financial condition.  One of them
showed a monthly remainder of $436 and the other a monthly remainder of $165.
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for supporting his family, his prompt payment of
rent after moving away from the family home, and his efforts to pay all of the bills associated with
maintaining two households.  His character witnesses agree that he is hardworking, thrifty, reliable,
honest, and patriotic.  
The Judge’s Analysis
In concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns in his case, the Judge
cited to evidence that Applicant remains the sole source of income for his wife and children.  His
financial condition worsened by his move to a different residence.  The Judge concluded that
Applicant’s living estimates are unreasonably low when one takes into account the number of family
members who rely on him for support.  The Judge also concluded that Applicant’s problems did not
result from circumstances outside his control, insofar as he voluntarily left his wife, moved to a
separate address, and yet took no steps toward divorce and remains liable for the family debt.  The
Judge stated that Applicant took no action in regard to his financial problems until his security
clearance became endangered.  He has not undergone financial counseling save what was required
for his bankruptcy.  The Judge also cited to evidence of Applicant’s financial problems in 2002 and
2003.  
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge described Applicant as patriotic, hardworking,
thrifty, and mature.  On the other hand, the Judge stated that Applicant had assumed a large and
growing financial burden.  The Judge concluded that these matters constitute an ongoing potential
for pressure or duress.  The Judge concluded that the record left him with “substantial doubt as to
Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance[.]”   Decision at 7. 
Discussion
Applicant’s brief quotes extensively from his wife’s testimony and testimony of other
witnesses.  He argues that he was not responsible for the debts, and, once he discovered the true
nature of his financial condition, took steps to resolve his problems.  He also cites to his witnesses’s
belief that he is a person who can be trusted with classified information.  The Judge made findings
about Applicant’s circumstances and his character evidence, discussing these things in his analysis. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01443 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 28, 2015).  As Department Counsel
contends in his Reply Brief, Applicant’s argument on appeal amounts to a disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to undermine the Judge’s overall
conclusions.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-05113 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 30, 2014). 
Applicant argues that the record is devoid of evidence of criminal practices, illegal financial
transactions, unexplained affluence, etc.  To the extent that he is arguing that Applicant’s financial
problems do not raise security concerns, we note that Guideline F contemplates more than that an
3
applicant may be tempted to compromise classified information in order to obtain funds to pay his
debts.  Rather, it also requires a Judge to examine the applicant’s circumstances for what they may
reveal or suggest about the applicant’s judgment, reliability, and other characteristics expected of
those entrusted with access to national secrets.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03392 at 3 (App. Bd.
Apr. 15, 2015).  In this case the Judge’s findings about Applicant’s financial problems in the early
2000s, the extent of his current and ongoing delinquencies, and evidence that his problems became
worse even after separating from his wife support his overall adverse decision.
Applicant cites to general factors set forth near the beginning of Enclosure 2 of the Directive,
asserting that the Judge failed to apply them.  The Judge applied the specific disqualifying and
mitigating conditions of Guideline F to the facts of the case.  He then discussed, in a separate whole-
person analysis, the general factors that Applicant has cited.  A Judge is not required to draft a
decision in any particular way.  In this case, we conclude that the Judge fairly considered and
applied all pertinent aspects of the Directive.     
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: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                    
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
5