KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge found that two SOR debts were duplicates of two others.  For each pair she
entered favorable findings for one debt and adverse findings for the other.  An applicant suffers
no prejudice when a Judge enters favorable findings for one of two duplicative allegations. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-11371.a1
DATE: 07/08/2016
DATE: July 8, 2016
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-11371
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
February 11, 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 a hearing. 
On April 19, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s formal findings were
inconsistent and 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’s SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, most of which the Judge resolved in his
favor.  She entered adverse findings for three: a revolving charge account for furniture, a medical
debt, and a credit line.  The first and third of these were reduced to judgments.  The Judge found that
Applicant had other debts which were not alleged, including $12,000 for Federal taxes.  The Judge
stated that she was considering the non-alleged debts for such things as evaluating Applicant’s case
for mitigation, performing a whole-person analysis, etc.1  Decision at 9, note 4.  Applicant attributed
his financial problems to a diminution of his household income and to a medical problem.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted evidence that Applicant’s problems were affected by circumstances outside
his control.  However, she concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to
his debts.  She cited to evidence that, due to a decrease in his monthly mortgage payments,
Applicant had additional funds with which to address his debts but failed to do so.  She also stated
that wage garnishments in response to court-ordered judgments do not equate to good-faith efforts
to resolve debts.  She acknowledged that Applicant had a good work record but concluded that,
based on his current circumstances, Applicant had not mitigated the concerns in his case.
Discussion
Applicant notes that the Judge found that two SOR debts were duplicates of two others.  For
each pair she entered favorable findings for one debt and adverse findings for the other.  He argues
that the Judge’s formal findings are not consistent. We find nothing inconsistent or erroneous about
this.  The Judge stated specifically that she found as she did in order to avoid the appearance that
Applicant’s financial problems were worse than they actually were.  Decision at 12.  See ISCR Case
No. 97-0440 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1998) to the effect that an applicant suffers no prejudice when
a Judge enters favorable findings for one of two duplicative allegations.
1See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07219 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012).  
2
Applicant’s brief addresses his tax debt.  He cites to evidence, some of which is not in the
record.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant’s comments
are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  We find no error in the manner
in which the Judge treated this debt.
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: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3