KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05764.a1
DATE: 02/24/2016
DATE: February 24, 2016
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05764
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
January 27, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d).  
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 December 2, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 2002 until 2012.  He has been employed by a
Defense contractor since 2014.  His SOR lists seven delinquent debts, that had either been charged
off or were in collection status.  The Judge found that one of the debts, a credit card, has been
resolved.  However, he found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the remainder had
been paid or reduced.  Applicant hired a law firm in 2014 to assist him resolving his debts.  He has
paid them a total of over $1,000 but, in the week before the hearing, concluded that they were not
delivering on their promise of debt resolution.  He plans to stop using the firm.  However, for several
years prior to hiring the firm, applicant made no payments on his overdue debts.
Applicant currently makes about $65,000 a year.  He has over $5,000 in savings and has a
monthly surplus of about $800.  About two weeks prior to the hearing, Applicant took a number of
on-line financial classes.  A witness testified that he had known Applicant for many years and
believed him to be hardworking, trustworthy, and ethical.  He submitted a number of documents,
both during the hearing and afterward, showing, among other things, his financial education classes,
his military discharge, several letters of recommendation, including one from a Brigadier General,
and an agreement with a new law firm.
The Judge’s Analysis
 The Judge noted evidence that Applicant’s financial problems were affected by a period of
unemployment and by education loans that were not deferred during Applicant’s military
deployment, but that he had not acted responsibly in regard to his debts.1  He stated that Applicant
took no steps to resolve his debts until 2014, hiring the law firm after he began applying for a
clearance.  He concluded that Applicant’s dilatory response to addressing his debts precluded
favorable application of Mitigating Condition 20(d): “initiated a good-faith effort to resolve his
debts.”2
3Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(b).
4Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(a): “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts[.]”
5Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(c): “a history of not meeting financial obligations[.]”  
3
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence of his efforts to resolve his debts, such as hiring the law firm and
other steps.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2015).  Neither has he
shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  He cites to Disqualifying Condition (DC) 19(b):
“indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending[.]”3  He argues that he has not been
irresponsible in his spending and that he was not trying to establish a lifestyle that was beyond his
means.  The Judge did not apply DC 19(b), however.  Rather, he found that DC 19(a)4 and 19(c)5
were raised by Applicant’s circumstances, which was reasonable, based on the record that was
before him.  
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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board