KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record.  Neither has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  Beyond
those two issues, Applicant’s brief fails for lack of specificity.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-04878.a1
DATE: 08/30/2016
DATE: August 30, 2016
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-04878
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
March 26, 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 decision
on the written record.  On June 1, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered the record
evidence concerning a mortgage debt and whether the Judge failed properly to weigh this evidence. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR lists 18 delinquent debts, for such things as medical expenses, television
services, and a charged-off second mortgage.  Applicant’s medical bills resulted from his knee
surgery, as well as from his daughter’s dental care.  He contended that the mortgage had been sold
to another creditor.  However, the record did not support this contention.  The debt in question was
a second mortgage on a property and had been charged-off.  The  other evidence regarding mortgage
debt did not clearly refer to this second mortgage.  Applicant provided little evidence concerning
his financial condition or to demonstrate that he had received financial counseling.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s debts were numerous and “largely unaddressed.”  Decision
at 4.  He stated that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to show that the debts had been
addressed and that similar problems are not likely to arise in the future.  Regarding the mortgage,
which is far and away the largest of Applicant’s delinquent debts, the Judge found that the record
does not establish that it has been addressed.  The upshot of the Judge’s analysis is that Applicant
had not provided enough evidence to meet his burden of persuasion.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief states that his mortgage has been discharged.  To the extent that he is
contending that the Judge did not consider his documentary submissions about this debt, he has
failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. 
Moreover, he has not demonstrated that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence of this debt.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  Beyond this, Applicant’s brief fails for lack
of specificity.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05920 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016).  The Judge’s
treatment of this debt in supportable.1
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.”
1In his Response to the File of Relevant Material, Applicant addressed this second mortgage.  He notes that a
named creditor took over the first mortgage on a property and that the second mortgage was charged-off.  His brief
apparently assumes that a charged-off debt has been satisfied, which is not the case.  However, even if a debt has been
paid, or even if a creditor is not actively seeking payment of a debt, a Judge can still consider the circumstances
surrounding the debt–or a lack of evidence explaining these circumstances–in evaluating an applicant’s case for
mitigation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).
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