KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s argument amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-05856.a1
DATE: 01/25/2016
DATE: January 25, 2017
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-05856
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 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 hearing. 
On December 8, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi  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’s SOR alleged delinquent debt of about $37,000, which date back to 2008.  It also
alleged a Chapter 13 bankruptcy that was dismissed, gambling, and improper use of a company
credit card.  The debts were for such things as a student loan, medical expenses, telephone services,
a judgment for unpaid rent, utility services, and checks returned for insufficient funds.  Except for
the relatively small one for utilities, none of Applicant’s delinquent debts had been resolved as of
the close of the record.  
Applicant has suffered periods of abuse and spent time and money trying to get custody of
her children.  She has been treated for depression, which included treatment for gambling. 
Applicant gambled about twice a month as a respite from her abusive spouse.  She used her company
credit card for car repairs and paid the bill.  Applicant lives paycheck to paycheck.  She has about
$700 in her checking account after expenses and about $5 in savings.  She is paying back a loan
from her 401(k).  After the hearing she set up a meeting with a financial counselor.  Applicant
enjoys a good reputation for trustworthiness, dedication, and sincerity.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s gambling was not a compulsive habit and, therefore,
did not raise security concerns in and of itself.  However, he stated that her gambling was an
appropriate matter to be addressed in the whole-person analysis.  He also concluded that her aborted
bankruptcy filing did not raise concerns.  Regarding Applicant’s debts, he concluded that she had
shown mitigation only regarding the utility bill.  For the remainder, he stated that she had permitted
them to remain unresolved for years, despite having been steadily employed since 2004.  He
concluded that she had not demonstrated a good-faith effort to pay her debts and that she had not
provided a reason to believe that her problems will not recur.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s difficult marriage and the abuse
that she suffered therein.  However, he stated that this did not explain her many years of delinquent
debts.  He also noted that she continues to gamble, despite her financial difficulties.  The Judge
2
stated that Applicant’s misuse of a company credit card indicated that she was not in control of her
finances.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence that she believes supports her effort for a security clearance.  This
includes her consistent employment, her lack of security infractions despite a history of financial
problems, and her difficult personal problems.  Applicant argues that she is aggressively tackling
her delinquent debts, “utilizing logical solutions suggested by the [Judge].”1   Applicant’s argument
amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough 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. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016).  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 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 Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
1Toward the end of the hearing, the Judge asked Applicant if she had considered using a non-profit credit
counselor, possibly through her employer.  Tr. at 77.  As stated in the findings summary above, Applicant enlisted the
services of a counselor after the hearing.  
3
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4