KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The security concerns under Guideline F are not limited to the risk of illegal conduct. 
There are also consideration, of judgment, self-control, etc.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-01479.a1
DATE: 09/02/2015
DATE: September 2, 2015
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-01479
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
9, 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 June 22, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 his debts raised concerns under
Guideline F 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
Married since 1992, Applicant has two children.  He has been employed by a Federal
contractor since 2001 and has held a security clearance since 2002.  Applicant’s wife experienced
some medical problems in the 1990s, for example difficulties encountered during a pregnancy; ill
effects from dental treatment, which resulted in her losing her job; and, in 2012, a serious
physiological condition for which she was hospitalized.  
Applicant’s SOR alleges several delinquent debts, including credit card bills and a loan that
Applicant had used for the purposes of paying other bills.  Applicant has not communicated with the
creditors or made payments on his credit cards or on the loan since 2008.  Applicant earns about
$97,000 a year and has a part-time job.  He has paid off “several thousand dollars of his wife’s
hospital bills.”  Decision at 4.  He has about $14,000 in a retirement account.
Applicant has not received financial counseling.  About a month and a half prior to the
hearing, Applicant implemented a computer program to help him manage his money and bills.  He
has also found information on line about handling his finances.
Applicant enjoys a good reputation for the quality of his duty performance.  He is also lauded
for his community involvement, such as coaching soccer.  
The Judge’s Analysis
 The Judge resolved several of Applicant’s debts in his favor.  However, for four of them,
totaling about $55,000, he reached the opposite conclusion.  Though noting Applicant’s evidence
that his wife’s illness and unemployment affected his financial condition, the Judge found little
evidence of responsible action in regard to Applicant’s debts.  The Judge stated that waiting until
debts become unenforceable due to the statute of limitations does not qualify as responsible action.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant should have kept his creditors
informed about his financial condition.  He also stated that Applicant could have initiated some
good-faith effort to pay his debts.  The Judge ultimately concluded that Applicant’s unwillingness
to address his credit card and loan debts undercut his case for mitigation.
3
Discussion
Applicant states that he has no need to engage in illegal acts to pay his debts.  We construe
this as an argument that his financial problems do not raise security concerns.  However, the concern
under Guideline F is not simply that an applicant might be tempted to compromise classified
information in order to pay his debts.  A Judge should also consider the extent to which an
applicant’s circumstances cast doubt upon his judgment, self control, and other characteristics
essential to protecting national security information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00812 at 3-4
(App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).  The Judge did not err in concluding that Applicant’s history of delinquent
debt raised security concerns.
Applicant argues that he was “thrown off” by his “lack of knowledge of procedures at [the]
hearing that I never got to finish all I wanted to say[.]” Appeal Brief at 1.  We note that Applicant
received a copy of the Directive and pre-hearing guidance from the Chief Administrative Judge,
which describe in detail the procedures to be followed at the hearing, including Applicant’s burden
of persuasion as to mitigation, right to present evidence in furtherance of meeting that burden, and
right to employ counsel.  Moreover, at the hearing the Judge questioned Applicant on aspects of his
financial condition that Applicant had not presented on his own initiative, for example concerning
budgeting, financial counseling, etc.  See Tr. at 52-55.  At the end of the hearing the Judge inquired
if Applicant had additional evidence to present, and he replied that he did not.  Tr. at 62.  Applicant
received adequate notice of his various rights at the hearing, as well as of the procedures that would
be followed.  We find no reason to conclude that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to present
evidence in mitigation or that he was otherwise denied the due process afforded by the Directive.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-07352 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2009).  
Applicant cites to his evidence that the original amount of his debts was less than reflected
in his recent credit reports and on the SOR, because of interest and penalties.  He also cites to his
wife’s illnesses as circumstances outside his control.  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-00812, supra, at 3.  In presenting his arguments on appeal, Applicant cites to matters from
outside the record, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
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.”
4
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