KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Evidence of ongoing unresolved debts is sufficient to raise Guideline F concerns. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01253.a1
DATE: 04/20/2016
DATE: April 20, 2016
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01253
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 21, 2015, 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 that the case
be decided on the written record.  On February 9, 2016, after the close of the record, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan. denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
security clearance decision. 
The Judge found: A background investigation completed subsequent to July 2012 revealed
that Applicant had delinquent debts in the form of a credit card debt in the amount of $36,945, a
second mortgage debt in the amount of $31,710 and a second credit card debt in the amount of
$15,166.  In 2006, both Applicant and his wife experienced reductions in their pay.  The first credit
card debt was used by his wife to cover living expenses, although this was unknown to Applicant. 
The second credit card was used to pay for a surgical procedure undergone by Applicant’s wife. 
Because of financial difficulties, Applicant and his wife attempted to sell their home.  This occurred
during the housing market crash.  They sold the home at a short sale in 2010.  They took a $35,000
loss, resulting in the outstanding mortgage debt.  
After the sale of the home, Applicant and his wife separated, finally divorcing in 2011.  He
was required to pay off his ex-wife’s car loan as co-signer after she declared bankruptcy.  His wages
were garnished to pay off the $5,600 loan.  He also paid $8,000 in back taxes for tax years 2009 and
2010.  Applicant represented that he was paying some of his debts through a repayment agreement. 
He did not provide a copy of his debt repayment agreement or any proof that he was making
payments.  Applicant stated that the debt repayment firm he was using went bankrupt and he never
received any payment updates from them.  He states that he attempted to contact the creditors and,
when he finally reached them, he could not afford the payments that the creditors were demanding. 
Applicant decided to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy because he believed he had no other choice. 
He has retained an attorney, paid a retainer, and filing fee for the Chapter 13 action.  He attended
consumer debts counseling.  He has set up a budget and intends to pay $1,800 a month during the
five year Chapter 13 repayment plan.
The Judge concluded: The total amount of Applicant’s debt is about $84,000.  The debts
became delinquent in late 2009 or 2010 and remain unresolved.  The Government established its
case and the burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate
the security concerns.  While Applicant states that he enrolled in a debt repayment program, he did
not provide a copy of his debt repayment agreement or any proof of payments made to the debt
repayment company.  At the close of the record, Applicant had not filed for bankruptcy.  It is too
soon to conclude that the Chapter 13 plan will resolve doubts about Applicant’s reliability and
trustworthiness considering the length of time that Applicant has encountered financial problems. 
It is also too soon to conclude that he will meet the terms of the Chapter 13 repayment plan.  While
2
Applicant’s financial problems were caused, in part, by factors outside his control, such as reduction
in income and a divorce, he has provided no documentation concerning his efforts to address his
debts.  He gets credit for attending financial counseling in conjunction with his Chapter 13
bankruptcy, and he gets credit for resolving a tax debt and the balance of his ex-wife’s automobile
loan.  However, it is still too soon to conclude that his financial situation is under control.  Applicant
failed to submit sufficient information or evidence to supplement the record with relevant and
material facts that would mitigate the financial considerations security concerns.  It is unknown
whether Applicant has sufficient income to meet his financial obligations including the payments
toward the Chapter 13 repayment plan.  The security concerns raised under financial considerations
are not mitigated.   
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence in the record, citing
to evidence of Applicant’s loss of income, the housing market crash of 2010, and his divorce.  A
Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence of record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01578
at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2014).  Applicant has not rebutted this presumption.  The evidence that
Applicant argues the Judge ignored is specifically discussed in his decision.  Applicant’s citation
to favorable evidence is not 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. 14-00998 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar.
19, 2015).  
Applicant argues that because he is trustworthy, loyal to the United States, and has made
arrangements or has successfully satisfied some of his debts, the concerns under Guideline F are
largely inapplicable.  However, evidence of Applicant’s ongoing, unresolved debts is sufficient to
raise Guideline F concerns.  The Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct
under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s worthiness for a clearance.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
12-01295 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan 20, 2015).  Regarding mitigation, the presence of some mitigating
evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-25157at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2008).  As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh
the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable
evidence, or vice versa.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007).  A party’s
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different
interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or
reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).  The gravamen of the Judge’s decision was the
absence of corroborating evidence of Applicant’s claims that he was addressing his debts, and the
absence of evidence indicating that he was in a financial position to embark upon a meaningful
repayment program.  Notwithstanding the presence of mitigating circumstances, the Judge
concluded that the lack of this evidence prevented him from satisfying his burden of overcoming the
Government’s concerns.  This conclusion is supported by the record.       
The Board gives due consideration to the Hearing Office cases that Applicant has cited.
However, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal
Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-01297 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2015).
3
The Board does not review a case de novo.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes
that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.
“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). 
Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge 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
4