KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. 
CASE NO: 14-03301.a1
DATE: 12/07/2016
DATE: December 7, 2016
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03301
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 27, 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 hearing. 
On September 13, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 served in the military, retiring in 2003, after which he began working for his
current employer, a Defense contractor.  He has held a clearance since he was in the military. 
Applicant and his wife separated in 2008 and went through a contentious and costly divorce and
custody battle.  The decree of divorce was entered in mid-2016, and Applicant was awarded custody
of their child.  Applicant did not pay his bills and taxes during the separation and divorce.
Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection twice, and both times it was dismissed. 
He claimed that he had to dismiss the second action in order to proceed with the divorce.  During
the pendency of the second bankruptcy, nearly $41,000 was disbursed to the IRS, but none of the
other creditors received anything.
Applicant’s SOR alleges the two bankruptcy cases and numerous other debts.  Applicant’s
debts include $59,000 owed to the IRS and about $108,000 owed to other creditors.  Applicant earns
about $102,000 a year in addition to his military retirement.  He has about $79,000 in a retirement
account.  Except for payments that he made to the IRS, he has resolved none of the SOR debts,
including a $65 returned check to a pizza restaurant.  
Applicant contends that, now that his divorce is final, he can pay his debts.  He states that
he is making payments on an installment plan with the IRS and that his tax issues have been
resolved.  The Judge found, however, that the evidence did not support this last assertion.  He stated
that Applicant did not provide evidence of how much he paid through the installment agreement
before it was terminated.  His final property settlement from his divorce action required him to pay
his Federal income taxes for 2009 through 2014.  The Judge did not find credible Applicant’s post-
hearing claim that he had reduced his IRS debt to about $45,000.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found that two of the allegations were duplicates of one another and that other
SOR debts were either not established or were of doubtful security significance.  However, for the
majority of Applicant’s debts, including the one to the IRS, he entered adverse formal findings. 
Though noting Applicant’s marital problems, which were beyond Applicant’s control, he concluded
that Applicant had not acted responsibly under the circumstances.  He stated that Applicant’s
problems were recent and ongoing and that he had not made a good-faith effort to pay his debts.  He
also stated that amounts Applicant owes the IRS are increasing, insofar as he is not paying his taxes
in the year that they become due.  
The Judge noted Applicant’s military service, steady employment, and his divorce and
custody case.  However, he stated that Applicant is now actually in worse shape financially than he
was when he filed for bankruptcy protection.  He stated that Applicant’s tax debts will never be
solved unless he changes his habit of not paying them when due.
Discussion
Applicant cites to record evidence, such as his contentious divorce, his having custody of his
son, his service in the military, his employment record, his having held a clearance for many years
without incident or concern, and his effort to reduce his debts.  He argues that he has mitigated the
concerns arising from his financial problems.  The Judge made findings about the matters Applicant
has cited in his appeal and discussed it in his analysis.  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).
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: James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy          
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board