KEYWORD:  Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST:  Applicant’s arguments do not undermine the Judge’s findings and conclusions about
an insufficiency of documentary evidence regarding his financial situation.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASE NO:  15-02198.a1
DATE:  01/18/2017
DATE: January 18, 2017
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02198
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Gregory F. Greiner, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
October 25, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On October 25, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 in that it failed to consider relevant factors.  The Judge’s
favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following,
we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked for his employer, a DoD contractor, since 2010.  Applicant’s wife has
three children, and Applicant has two from prior relationships.  He retired from the military in 1998
as an E-5.  
Applicant’s wife was injured at work in 2010.  She had eight surgeries that were not
successful and, in 2012, lost her job.  As a consequence, the household income decreased by about
two-thirds, and the family was left with medical bills of about $40,000.  In addition, Applicant’s
daughter experienced medical problems requiring hospitalization for 90 days, and Applicant
provided her with financial support.  Applicant also provides support to his spouse’s son.  Applicant
makes about $46,000 a year.  His former spouse receives 30% of his retirement pay.  In addition,
he receives about $300 a year for a service-connected disability.
Applicant’s SOR alleges a bankruptcy petition that was ultimately dismissed at his request. 
It also lists numerous delinquent debts, for such things as a timeshare repossession and collection
debts owed to several banks, a department store, a gym, and other creditors.  Applicant made no
payments toward these debts, some of which have become delinquent since 2010.  For some of them
he did not maintain contact with creditors.  Though he stated that he had attempted to set up payment
plans, he does not have actual payment agreements with any of the creditors.
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for honesty, diligence, and trustworthiness.  He is
highly regarded for leadership and integrity.  The authors of Applicant’s character references support
his effort to obtain a clearance.
The Judge’s Analysis
As noted above, the Judge entered favorable findings under Guideline E.  However, he made
adverse findings for the delinquent debts.  He cited to evidence that Applicant’s financial problems
were affected by circumstances outside his control, that is, his wife’s illness and the financial needs
of his children.  The Judge stated, however, that Applicant did not provide sufficient information
about how these circumstances affected his finances or how he had demonstrated responsible action.
The Judge noted that Applicant held stable employment for several years, concluding that “he should
have been acclimated to his spouse’s loss of income.”  Decision at 7.  Though resolving the
bankruptcy allegation in Applicant’s favor, he stated that there was insufficient evidence to show
why Applicant had made no more progress in resolving his debts.
The Judge cited to favorable evidence, such as Applicant’s military career, his character
references, his clean criminal record, etc.  He concluded, however, that this was not enough to
outweigh the concerns arising from the SOR debts.  He noted that Applicant did not submit
documents showing changes in his income, nor did he show how he attempted to reduce his
expenses.  Neither did Applicant provide documents showing payment histories of other, non-
alleged debts, such as his mortgage, student loans, a vehicle lien, and credit card accounts.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider relevant factors.   See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-02563 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 28, 2015).  He cites to record evidence of such things as his
wife’s medical problems, his military career, his having held a clearance for many years without
incident or concern, etc.  This 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. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov.
22, 2016). Applicant argues that he has changed his spending habits and is current on necessities. 
However, this 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).  In particular, Applicant’s arguments do not undermine the Judge’s findings and conclusions
about an insufficiency of documentary evidence regarding his financial situation.  
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
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board