KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02158.a1
DATE: 03/21/2016
DATE: March 21, 2016
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02158
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declied to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
October 15, 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.1 
On January 12, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 has worked for a Defense contractor since 2010.  His security clearance was most
recently renewed in August of that year.
Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts, including various collection accounts,
a past-due mortgage, medical bills, and other financial obligations.  Several of Applicant’s debts
were satisfied through garnishment.  His credit report shows that he paid other debts that were not
alleged in the SOR.  In addition, Applicant submitted documentary evidence along with his answer
to the SOR that disclosed a state tax lien entered in September 2010.  Applicant paid some of his
debts after the hearing.  One of the debts alleged in the SOR is a deficiency judgment from a
foreclosure on a house.  Applicant has had no contact with the creditor.  
Applicant attributed his problems to a difficult separation from his wife and to financial
assistance he has provided to his adult children.  He also acknowledged that he has been in financial
disarray for some time.  The Judge found that Applicant had been indifferent to his problems and
that his daughters prepared a plan for him which he has not acted upon.  He has received no financial
counseling, although after the hearing he submitted a statement of intent to hire a counselor and to
pay off another creditor, a cell phone provider.   
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge could not conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were unlikely to recur,
given evidence that these problems were the result of a lack of sophistication regarding money,
along with an unwillingness to address the problems.  He concluded that Applicant’s problems were,
on the whole, affected by circumstances that were within his control.  Moreover, he stated that
Applicant had not acted responsibly to resolve his debts.  He stated that Applicant’s “belated efforts”
to pay some of his debts do not satisfy the Directive’s requirement of good-faith.  Decision at 5.  He
concluded that Applicant had not provided enough information to support a favorable whole-person
analysis.
Discussion
1Decision at 1.
2
Applicant does not deny that his finances have been poor for some time.  He cites to
evidence that he has held a clearance for many years without incident or concern.  He states that it
has been renewed several times in the past.   However, a Judge must base his decision on the record
that is before him.  Prior decisions to grant or retain a clearance do not undermine the legal
sufficiency of a Judge’s subsequent adverse determination.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00609 at
2, n. 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2014).  The government need not wait until an individual mishandles or
fails to safeguard classified information before it can make an unfavorable security clearance
decision.  Even those with good prior records can encounter circumstances in which their judgment
and reliability might be compromised.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04648 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 9,
2015);  Adams v. Laird, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 (D. C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1039
(1970).  Applicant cites to other evidence, such as his problematic circumstances with his wife and
to his service in the U.S. military.  The Judge noted Applicant’s evidence about his wife.  However,
his conclusion that Applicant’s problems were, on the whole, the result of his own inattention is
consistent with the record.  Although the Judge did not mention Applicant’s military service, a Judge
is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, which would be an impossibility.  Applicant has
not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the case.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 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: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4