KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03875.a1
DATE: 10/26/2016
DATE: October 26, 2016
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03875
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
December 3, 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 August 3, 2016, after considering the record, 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 issue on appeal: 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 has worked for a Defense contractor since 2003.  This is his first effort to obtain
a clearance.  Applicant financed his education with student loans, which he has paid on time. 
However, he co-signed two student loans for his spouse and became jointly liable with her on a
third.  These loans form the basis of the three SOR allegations at issue here.  The couple experienced
some difficult circumstances that had an impact on their finances.  Applicant’s spouse received
reduced pay from her job while on maternity leave, and they began to struggle with their monthly
expenses.  Applicant’s spouse was unemployed for two months.  She took another job at less pay
but has been fully employed since early 2013.  The creditors charged-off the loans alleged in the
SOR.  Applicant and his spouse made monthly payments for one of them, the largest, and initiated
court challenges to the other two based on lack of privity of contract and/or the statute of limitations. 
The record contains no evidence about Applicant’s income, expenses, or personal family
circumstances that affected their financial condition.  
There is no evidence that Applicant addressed the two loans that were the subject of
litigation during the pendency of the disputes.  In addition, the couple took on new debt by obtaining 
car loans and by financing the purchase of furniture.  The two loans that were the subject of
litigation were acquired by a collection agency, which offered a settlement agreement that the couple
could not afford.  In early 2016, the couple set up automatic payments of $75 on each of these two
loans, that being all that they could pay.  Applicant’s other loans and his ordinary expenses are being
paid on time.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant had provided little specific information about the
circumstances that led up to their debts, except that his wife suffered a diminution in income and that
a follow-on job entailed less pay. She stated that Applicant had provided no information about the
extent of the income loss or of other difficult circumstances.  She stated that generalized statements
of financial struggle were not enough fully to mitigate the concerns arising from Applicant’s
financial problems.  The Judge made favorable findings about the one student loan that had been the
subject of consistent payments.  However, she stated that, without information about Applicant’s
2
income, savings, and expenses, it was not possible to determine whether the amounts he was paying
on the other two were enough to mitigate the concerns arising from them.  She concluded that the
record contained insufficient evidence that Applicant’s problems were resolved.  
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence concerning his effort at debt resolution and argues that his credit
reports show that he is in good financial condition.  Relying on a statement that he had submitted
in response to the File of Relevant Material, Applicant’s brief provides context for his debt situation. 
He contends that he is able to pay his current bills and that he has acquired no additional
delinquencies.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2-3 (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: Jean E. Smallin                    
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
3
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4