KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Given the record, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not resolved the concerns
arising from his delinquent debts was reasonable.  Evidence that a creditor is no longer seeking
enforcement of a debt and has written it off, does not establish that the debt has been resolved in
a way that mitigates security concerns arising from it.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03732.a1
DATE: 12/21/2015
DATE: December 21, 2015
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03732
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On  
September 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 decision
on the written record.  On October 15, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 works for a Government contractor.  He states that he was a victim of credit card
fraud and that he did not make a majority of the charges on the past-due debts.  He corroborated his
claim of identity theft by providing correspondence from his medical provider that its IT system had
been compromised.
One of the SOR debts is a judgment in the amount of over $13,000, which is supported by
a recent credit report.  Applicant attempted to dispute this judgment with the court, but he was not
successful.  The creditor has written this judgment off as a business loss.  The Judge found that it
was still outstanding.
The three remaining debts are owed to a single creditor.  These debts total over $17,500.
They too are supported by Applicant’s credit report.  The creditor sued Applicant, but the case was
dismissed “without prejudice” because the parties had agreed to resolve it between themselves.
However, although Applicant offered a settlement, the creditor counter-offered, and the record
contains no evidence of further action.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant has “significant past-due debts and an outstanding judgment,
which he has not resolved.”  Decision at 3.  Though noting Applicant’s disputes as to the amounts
owed, the Judge stated that Applicant had not addressed the debts that he admits are his.  The Judge
concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the concerns arising from his financial problems.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence that he had disputed the debts.  He also notes evidence that his
private information may have been hacked and that the creditor owning the judgment has written
it off.  The Judge made findings about the evidence that Applicant has cited.  The Judge’s comment
that Applicant had not paid even the amounts that he admits were legitimate is supported by the
record.  See, e.g., Item 4, Interview Summary, at 5: “In hindsight [Applicant] believes the more
3
correct approach would have been to make payments covering charges he was responsible for while
he continued to dispute the balance of the account.”  We also note that the compromise of
Applicant’s personal information occurred in late 2014, long after Applicant’s financial problems
had arisen.  Letter from Insurance Company, dated March 5, 2015.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-08412 at
2 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2015).
Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not resolved
the concerns arising from his delinquent debts was reasonable.  Evidence that a creditor is no longer
seeking enforcement of a debt and has written it off as a business expense does not establish that the
debt has been resolved in a way that would necessarily mitigate security concerns arising from it.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-03656 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 19, 2011) (Non-collectability of a debt does
not constitute a good-faith effort to resolve it).  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