KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03722.a1
DATE: 12/11/2015
DATE: December 11, 2015
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03722
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  
October 30, 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 decision
on the written record.  On October 13, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 served in the U.S. military from 1981 to 1987.  He has worked for his current
employer since 1995 and disclosed no periods of unemployment.  Between 2008 and 2012,
Applicant acquired 18 delinquent debts, totaling over $25,000.  Applicant stated that he had either
paid these debts or had them removed from his credit reports.  One of the debts was for a judgment
that was satisfied through garnishment.  Applicant turned over the remainder to a credit repair firm
in order to dispute the debts.  Applicant asserted that the firm was successful in having his debts
removed from his credit reports, but he provided no independent evidence as to when or for what
reason they were removed.  The Judge concluded that, without such evidence, he could drawn no
inferences about the circumstances underlying Applicant’s financial situation.  He also noted that
Applicant did not provide documentary evidence of any extenuating circumstances that might have
had an impact on his financial situation.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant had presented no evidence of circumstances beyond his
control that affected his financial problems, nor had he demonstrated that he had acted responsibly
in regard to his debts.  He stated that, without evidence of financial counseling or of steps taken to
address his debts, “mitigation credit is very limited.”  Decision at 5.  In the whole-person analysis
the Judge reiterated his comments about the paucity of mitigating evidence in the record.  
Discussion
Applicant’s appeal includes evidence that was not contained in the record.  We cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant’s brief cites to record evidence
that his debts had been removed from his credit reports.  The Judge made findings about this
evidence and discussed it in his analysis of Applicant’s circumstances.  Applicant has not rebutted
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
12-08412 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2015).  As the Judge noted, it is an applicant’s responsibility to
present evidence in extenuation or mitigation.  Moreover, the applicant bears the burden of
persuasion.  Decision at 4-5; Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant
had failed to a meet his burden of persuasion is supportable.  Delinquent debts may cast doubt upon
an applicant’s judgment, self control, and other characteristics essential to protecting national
3
security information.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 18;  See also ISCR Case No. 14-01479 at 2 (App. Bd.
Sep. 2, 2015).  Debts can be dropped from credit reports for a number of reasons.  Evidence that
debts are no longer listed on credit reports, in and of itself, may be entitled to minimal weight in the
absence of further evidence that the debts have actually been paid or settled, that they are not
legitimately the applicant’s, that they arose from causes outside the applicant’s control and that he
acted responsibly, or other circumstances that demonstrate good judgment, self-control, etc.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015). 
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              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board