KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his family’s medical emergencies.
However, the Judge made detailed findings about these matters and discussed them in his
analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01495.a1
DATE: 07/14/2017
DATE: July 14, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01495
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
November 4, 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 Claude R. Heiny 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 a Defense contractor since 2005.  He served in the military, retiring
in 2006.  His total take-home pay, including his salary and his military pension, is about $98,000
a year.  Applicant has experienced financial problems, his SOR alleging unpaid debts for credit
cards, collection accounts, etc.  Applicant’s problems were affected by his son’s expensive medical
treatment as well as by treatment for his wife’s illness and by her job losses.  The Judge found that
Applicant had paid some of his SOR debts and that he was making payments on others.  However,
he stated that Applicant did not corroborate many of his claims of debt resolution.  In addition,
Applicant filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000, although the reasons for this action were not set
forth in the record.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that, since first being asked about his debts in 2012, Applicant has shown
payment of about $1,200 out of a total of $36,000 in delinquent financial obligations.  Though
noting Applicant’s evidence about family medical problems and his wife’s job losses, which were
circumstances outside his control, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not shown responsible
action, given his rather meager record of addressing his financial problems.  Applicant has had no
financial counseling, nor has he presented evidence that his problems are under control.  Although
some of his debts may have been forgiven, there is no corroborating evidence regarding this.  Given
Applicant’s annual income and his limited evidence of actual payment, the Judge concluded that
Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his financial delinquencies. 
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his family’s medical emergencies. 
However, the Judge made detailed findings about these matters and discussed them in his analysis. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record.  Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7,
2017).
Applicant contends that a substantial number of his SOR debts are not collectable due to the
running of the statute of limitations.  However, even if that is so, the extent to which a debt may not
be legally enforceable is not, in and of itself, evidence of responsible action or of a good-faith effort
to pay it.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).
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, Encl. 2 App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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