KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge made findings about Applicant’s favorable character evidence and
discussed it in his analysis. Given the record that was before him, we cannot say that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-00729.a1
DATE: 06/13/2017
DATE: June 13, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00729
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
August 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 March 22, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, 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’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 her current employer, a Defense contractor, since 2013. She has
held a clearance since 2005.  She has four delinquent debts totaling about $92,000.  Most of this is
for education loans she co-signed for her son.  One allegation is a credit card account that she co-
signed for him.  Her son graduated from college in 2014 and has been gainfully employed since
2015.
Applicant acknowledged the accounts during her 2013 clearance interview but stated that
she did not know that they were delinquent.  Her son acknowledged that the education debts were
his but stated that he was not able to pay more than $35 a month for one account and $75 a month
for another.  Applicant and her husband have made payments from time to time on the education
loans, but they have not done so in a regular basis.  Her position is that her son is responsible for his
debts, for which he is the primary obligor.  
Applicant’s supervisor and colleagues commend her honesty and trustworthiness and
recommend that she receive a clearance.  Applicant has received no financial counseling and did not
submit a budget.  She had a $2,300 positive cash flow in January 2015, which has improved since.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge characterized Applicant’s financial problems as multiple and recent.  He stated
that, given her son’s checkered history of addressing his debts, Applicant’s security concerns cannot
be described as unlikely to recur.  He stated that Applicant’s failure to press for a resolution of these
debts is lacking in responsibility.  She has received no financial counseling and has not demonstrated
that the debts are being resolved.  What efforts she has undertaken occurred after she received the
SOR.  The Judge stated that Applicant’s favorable character evidence was not sufficient to outweigh
the concerns arising from her financial problems.  
Discussion
Applicant acknowledges that the debts in question have been in default at times.  She argues
that she has been working to resolve these debts.  She states that she has never been neglectful of
her duties or engaged in questionable judgment, as evidenced by her unblemished record. 
Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut 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).  The Judge
made findings about Applicant’s favorable character evidence and discussed it in his analysis. 
Given the record that was before him, we cannot say that the Judge weighed the evidence in a
manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08842 at 3
(App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017).  The Directive contemplates that even those with good prior records can
encounter circumstances in which their ability to protect classified information might be called in
question.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02995 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 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
Signed: William S. Fields                 
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board