KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-06259.a1
DATE: 06/19/2017
DATE: June 19, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-06259
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
December 31, 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 March 31, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 failed properly to apply
the whole-person concept.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s debt problem arose due to his (now) ex-wife having suffered injury from an
automobile accident, which, along with her mother’s illness and surgery, caused the wife to miss
work.  As a consequence, the couple had to rely on Applicant’s salary alone, which was not
sufficient, and they fell into debt.  The couple divorced in 2013.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for example, education loans, accounts owed to
a bank, etc.  Applicant entered into an agreement with a debt resolution company to address some
of his debts.  He entered into a plan, with payments to begin in March 2016.  Applicant presented
no evidence of any payments.  Applicant’s education loans were made the subject of a payment plan
as well, and he made payments from October 2015 through January 2016.  Applicant stated that
payments continued until August 2016, at which time the plan lapsed, and his back up plan is to get
a second job.
 In addition, the SOR alleges a delinquent mortgage, which is his wife’s responsibility
pursuant to the divorce decree.  It also cites to a charged-off account that Applicant believed was
included in the first payment plan described above, although he presented no corroboration for this
claim.  Applicant’s character references describe him as reliable and trustworthy.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved the mortgage debt in Applicant’s favor.  The remainder, however,
resulted in adverse findings.  Though noting circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected
his debts, the Judge stated that the education loans appear to be “at a standoff” and that there is
insufficient documentary proof that the other debts are being addressed.  Directive at 6.  The Judge
stated that Applicant has not had formal debt counseling and that his financial reserves are “scant.” 
Id. at 7.  In the whole-person analysis the Judge reiterated his comments about a paucity of
corroborating evidence and concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of debt
resolution.
Discussion
Some of Applicant’s comments on appeal pertain to the mortgage loan, which the Judge
resolved favorably to him.  He also cites to his efforts at debt resolution, his having hired a firm to
address his financial problems, and to his extensive documentary response to the SOR, which
includes documents concerning debt disputes, payments plans, etc.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  Reading the Decision as a whole, we conclude that the
Judge evaluated Applicant’s security concerns in light of the entirety of the evidence, which is what
a whole-person analysis requires.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016). 
Applicant states that he has taken some financial classes on line.  This is supported by a Certificate
of Completion attached to Applicant’s response to the SOR.  This document is not totally consistent
with the Judge’s comment in the Analysis portion of the Decision that Applicant had not had formal
counseling.  However, to the extent that this is an error, it did not likely affect the overall decision. 
Therefore, it is harmless.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00535 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017).   
 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: James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board