KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record.  Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the
evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse decision
affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-05357.a1
DATE: 03/17/2016
DATE: March 17, 2016
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05357
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Travis D. Tull, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 29, 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).  On December 24, 2015, after
the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A.
Lynch 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 her current employer since 1984 and has held a security clearance
since then.  Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts.  The Judge entered adverse findings for
three of them, each exceeding $30,000 in amount.  Applicant’s financial problems were affected by
her having co-signed a student loan for her daughter, who, after a year, decided not to return to
college.  The student loan, which was one of the three adverse findings, became due in 2008. 
Applicant received a partial refund from the school in the amount of $10,000.  In addition,
Applicant’s mother suffered illness, necessitating her moving in with Applicant.  Applicant became
responsible for her mother’s financial and medical needs, and, after her mother’s death, paid her
property taxes.  
Another loan has been reduced to judgment, Applicant owing a little over $37,000.  She
made some payments but became ill and was on disability for a time.  The last payments she made
on this debt were in 2013.  The third debt found against Applicant is for a collection account of
nearly $31,000.  It was closed out in 2010, remains unpaid, and no longer appears on her credit
reports.
Applicant’s daughter signed an affidavit accepting responsibility for the student loan and for
the $31,000 debt.  There is no documentation to show that she is making payments.  Applicant’s
salary is about $72,000, and she has a monthly remainder of about $500.  She is current on her daily
expenses, her mortgage, and her car payment.  Applicant has incurred no new debts.  She enjoys a
good reputation for diligence and responsibility.
The Judge’s Analysis   
The Judge stated that Applicant’s debt from 2008 is not resolved, preventing a conclusion
that it happened so long ago as not to impugn her judgment or reliability.  Though noting
circumstances outside Applicant’s control that had an impact on her finances, the Judge concluded
that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to the three delinquent debts
addressed above.  The Judge cited to evidence that Applicant has been steadily employed for several
years but has not made efforts to pay her debts, relying instead on their not appearing on her credit
reports or their charged-off status.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence such as Applicant’s years of
employment, her having held a clearance for many years without incident or concern, her good
reputation, and her adverse circumstances.  However, she concluded that Applicant had not
presented enough information about her efforts at debt resolution.  She also noted Applicant’s
reliance on the charged-off status of one of her large accounts.  Accordingly, the Judge concluded
that Applicant had not established a track record of debt payment.
2
Discussion
Applicant cites to record evidence she submitted in her own behalf, such as her illness as
well as that of her mother.  She also cites to evidence about her debts, including that the student loan
had been reduced from the amount alleged in the SOR.  The Judge made findings about the evidence
that Applicant has cited.  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Neither are they enough to show that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  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: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
4