KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Even if an Applicant has paid delinquent debts the Judge may consider the underlying
circumstances in evaluating an the person’s security eligibility.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-02905.a1
DATE: 08/19/2016
DATE: August 19, 2016
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02905
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
November 5, 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 7, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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: (1) whether the Judge decided the case on
the full record, and (2) whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact  
Applicant is a 56-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  He served in the military for
about 13 years and has held a security clearance since about 1980.  He was unemployed for about
five months in late 2012 and early 2013.  His wife experienced medical problems and his son
incurred legal bills, but details about those circumstances were not provided.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts totaling about $21,200.  In 2013,
he incurred a Federal tax debt because he mistakenly thought his employer was withholding taxes
from his pay.  He entered into a repayment plan with the IRS and resolved the tax debt.  The other
debts arose because he became financially overextended.  He retained a debt resolution company
to negotiate settlements with his creditors.  He submitted copies of settlement offers that were sent
to him between September 2010 and October 2014.  In response to Department Counsel’s File of
Relevant Material, he submitted a letter from the debt resolution company stating he completed the
debt settlement program.  However, he did not provide details about the program, such as the
identity of the debts in the program and proof of payments.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found against Applicant on all of the alleged debts but gave him credit under
mitigating condition 20(d)1 for resolving the Federal tax debt.  The Judge concluded that Applicant’s
other debts were not the result of conditions beyond his control because he admittedly allowed
himself to become financially overextended and also stated he did not provide sufficient information
to establish he acted responsibly in the face of his financial problems.  The Judge noted that
Applicant did not show what debts were resolved in the debt repayment program and did not present
information about his current finances to support a finding he is unlikely to become overextended
again. 
Discussion
1 Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ 20(b): “the individual initiated good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt[.]”
2
In the Appeal Brief, Applicant contends that the Judge did not weigh and consider all
relevant evidence.  He cites to such things as his period of unemployment, his wife’s medical
problems, his son’s legal bills, his resolution of the Federal tax debt, and his completion of the debt
resolution program.  However, the Judge made findings about those matters and discussed them in
his analysis of the mitigating conditions.  Applicant has not challenged any of the specific findings
in the decision.  His arguments are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they sufficient 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.
14-01284 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2015).  
Applicant also contends that the Judge’s analysis was contradictory because he determined
that Applicant resolved the Federal tax debt, yet found against him on that allegation.  Even if an
applicant has paid delinquent debts or otherwise resolved financial deficiencies, a Judge may still
consider the underlying circumstances in evaluating an applicant’s security eligibility.  ISCR Case
No. 14-02930 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 9, 2015).  Accordingly, payment of a delinquent debt does not
necessarily mandate a favorable ruling on that debt.  
     
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4