KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: We examine a Judge’s findings to see if they are supported by such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the same record. Applicant is correct about the medical debt.  The SOR allegation,
which Applicant admitted, and record evidence show that the amount is $100 rather than the
$667 that the Judge found.  Otherwise, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s findings.  He
noted her various claims to have disputed or paid debts.  His findings that she had not
corroborated these claims were consistent with the record that was before him.  The Judge’s
material findings are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01599.a1
DATE: 12/09/2016
DATE: December 9, 2016
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01599
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
September 24, 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 September 23, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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: whether the Judge’s findings of fact
contained errors and 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 early 2012.  She was unemployed
during most of 2011 and also for about six months in 2007 and 2008.  She was previously granted
clearances in 1980, 1997, and 2003.  Her finances have been a concern since about 1997, and she
addressed them in interviews with investigators.  She contends that her current financial problems
are due to her unemployment and to her former husband’s failure to observe the requirements of the
divorce decree.  
Applicant’s SOR debts include an automobile repossession, cell phone accounts, a $667
medical debt, credit cards, and a bank overdraft fee.  Applicant claimed to have disputed or resolved
her debts, but she presented little corroboration.  She notes that her credit reports state that some of
her debts have been disputed, resolved, and/or are no longer listed on her credit report.  Applicant
enjoys a good reputation for her trustworthiness.  She enclosed a recommendation by a Government
employee that she be granted a clearance.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judges resolved some of the allegations in Applicant’s favor.  However, for the ones
described above, he entered adverse findings.  Though he noted circumstances outside her control
that affected her finances, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible
action in regard to her debts.  He stated that she had not made a good-faith effort to pay them or
otherwise demonstrate that her problems are under control.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge
reiterated his comments, noting that Applicant has been employed since early 2012 but has not
presented documentary evidence to show debt resolution.
Discussion
2
Applicant challenges the Judge’s findings.  She argues that he erred concerning the amount
of the medical debt and that she had demonstrated either that her debts had been disputed or paid.1 
We examine a Judge’s findings to see if they are supported by “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See ISCR Case No. 14-04226 at 3 (App. Bd.
Aug. 18, 2015).   
Applicant is correct about the medical debt.  The SOR allegation, which Applicant admitted,
and record evidence show that the amount is $100 rather than the $667 that the Judge found. 
Otherwise, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s findings.  He noted her various claims to have
disputed or paid debts.  His findings that she had not corroborated these claims were consistent with
the record that was before him.  The Judge’s material findings are based on substantial evidence, or
constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record.  Applicant
has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case.  Considering the
record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).
The balance of Applicant’s arguments challenge the manner in which the Judge weighed the
evidence.  She cites to credit reports, for example, as showing that some of her debts have been
disputed.  However, the contents of credit reports in and of themselves may not be sufficient to show
meaningful efforts at debt resolution or dispute.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd.
Aug. 25, 2015).  In this case, though noting the credit reports, the Judge found that Applicant
provided little, if any, independent evidence to show the underlying basis for her disputes.2  In a
DOHA proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion that he or she should have a
clearance.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Given the paucity of corroborating evidence and Applicant’s
lengthy history of financial problems, the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is supportable.
Applicant cites to evidence about her unemployment, marital problems, prior history of
holding a clearance, etc.  The Judge made findings about the things that Applicant has cited.  Her
argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  Applicant states that her
employment is dependent upon her having a clearance.  The Directive does not permit us to consider
the impact of an unfavorable decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02619 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 7,
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
1Some of Applicant’s arguments pertain to allegations that the Judge resolved in her favor.  
2See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(e): “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-
due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute[.]” 
(emphasis added)  
3
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.”
4
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: James F. Duffy                     
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
5