KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief cites to evidence about the effect that Hurricane Katrina had on his
finances and about his efforts at debt resolution.  He argues that the Judge did not properly
employ the whole-person concept.   The Judge made findings about Applicant’s circumstances,
including the hurricane.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered
all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. The
Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive, in that the Judge
considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03964.a1
DATE: 11/18/2016
DATE: November 18, 2016
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03964
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 13, 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 July 8, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 is separated from his spouse.  He has five children and a step-child.  He served in
the military, achieving the rank of E-5.  Applicant is seeking a clearance in connection with his
employment by a Defense contractor.  
Applicant’s SOR lists twelve delinquent debts, for such things as an account at a university,
a broken lease, a state tax lien, a repossessed vehicle, etc.  He stated that he was working to resolve
his debts, and he disputes some of them.  He did not provide evidence of the basis for any disputes,
however.  Applicant attributed his financial problems to Hurricane Katrina, his divorce, expenses
associated with relocating, and the death of his father.  He noted that he had worked out of state,
living in a hotel when working and commuting on weekends, which caused his most recent
delinquent debts.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Though acknowledging circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his financial
problems, the Judge concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action.  She stated that he
had not provided corroboration for his claims of debt resolution, as a consequence of which he had
not demonstrated a track record of debt payment.  She stated that he appeared to have ignored his
debts until recently.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief contains matters from outside the record, including at least two documents
that post-date the Judge’s decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  Applicant’s brief cites to evidence about the effect that Hurricane Katrina had on his
finances and about his efforts at debt resolution.  He argues that the Judge did not properly employ
the whole-person concept.  
2
The Judge made findings about Applicant’s circumstances, including the hurricane. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-
05795 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  Moreover, the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with
the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in
reaching her decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00424 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 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 Ra’anan            
Michael 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
3