KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge made extensive findings about Applicant’s evidence and discussed it in the
Analysis portion of the decision.  The Judge reasonably explained why he concluded that
Applicant had only qualified for partial mitigation of the security concerns raised. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-04201.a1
DATE: 07/13/2016
DATE: July 13, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04201
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
November 7, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On April 11, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  On April 22, 2016, the Judge vacated the decision and issued a corrected
version, in order to address typographical errors in the first one.  Applicant appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge failed properly to apply
the mitigating conditions.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this
appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal.  Applicant’s
SOR contains numerous delinquent debts, for such things as medical treatment, student loans
totaling about $69,000, etc.  The Judge found that Applicant did not corroborate his claims that he
had resolved many of the debts.  Applicant asked the Department of Education about a payment
plan, but as of the date of the hearing no such plan had been effectuated.  Applicant stated that his
problems arose from a contentious divorce and from underemployment.  During their marriage,
Applicant’s wife handled the finances, and Applicant was not aware of their outstanding debts.  She
agreed that Applicant could pay a reduced amount of spousal support so that he could resolve his
debts.  His underemployment resulted from reduced work hours.  He changed employers, with a
resulting diminution in pay.
Applicant acknowledged that he should have paid more attention to his finances.  He stated
that he had experienced no financial problems prior to his divorce.  At the time he received the SOR
he did not have the means to resolve his debts.  He presented no evidence to show that he had
contacted creditors, other than those holding student loans.  There is no evidence that Applicant was
living beyond his means.  He has recently consulted with a financial counselor, and his ex-wife is
helping him dispute some questionable entries on his credit report.  Applicant enjoys a good
reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility, etc.  He has worked for Federal contractors
for 15 years without a security incident.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied to Applicant’s
circumstances.  He noted a paucity of evidence regarding debt resolution, contact with creditors, etc. 
He stated that Applicant should have been more diligent in investigating his financial condition.  The
Judge concluded that a recent promise by Applicant to address his debts was not credible.  In the
whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of circumstances outside Applicant’s control that
affected his debts.  However, he found that the record contained insufficient evidence of responsible
action.  
Discussion
Applicant states that the decision contains statements that are not consistent.  He appears to
be referring to the problems in the first decision that the Judge corrected by means of the second one. 
Otherwise, Applicant cites to evidence of his divorce and his underemployment, arguing that he has
mitigated the concerns alleged in the SOR.  The Judge made extensive findings about Applicant’s
evidence and discussed it in the Analysis portion of the decision.  The Judge reasonably explained
why he concluded that Applicant had only qualified for partial mitigation of the security concerns
raised.  Applicant has not rebutted 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).
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 Y. Ra’anan  
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board