KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: It is well established that promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a
substitute for a track record of timely debt repayment. Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 15-02823.a1
DATE: 07/11/2017
DATE: July 11, 2017     
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02823
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 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 decision
on the written record.  On April 28, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis  
Applicant is a 55-year-old employee of a contractor who has held a security clearance since
1998.  When his father died in 2003, Applicant and his stepmother were designated co-trustees and
beneficiaries of a revocable trust.  Applicant attributed the delinquent debts to payment of a lawsuit
settlement that resulted in termination of the trust in 2010.  Credit reports indicate the debts became
delinquent between March and October 2012.  In 2013, Applicant filed a lawsuit against his former
attorney in the trust lawsuit.  Applicant settled this latter lawsuit for about $250,000 with payments
to be made to him in installments starting in 2014.     
The SOR lists seven delinquent debts totaling over $62,000.  Applicant provided no 
documentation showing payments toward any of the delinquent debts.  He has done nothing to
resolved the listed debts, and the evidence does not show the debts are being resolved or are under
control.  Absent independent evidence that Applicant is addressing the delinquent debts, they raise
ongoing concerns about his current trustworthiness and judgment.
Discussion
Applicant contends that Judge erred in applying  the disqualifying and mitigating conditions. 
He cites that he is willing to pay his debts as soon as he is able to do so without creating more
financial burden on himself and highlights facts that support various mitigating conditions.  The
presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security
clearance decision.  As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide
whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  A party’s
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different
interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or
reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See e.g., ISCR Case
No. 15-01652 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 7, 2017). 
We find no error in the Judge’s determination that the evidence does not show the debts are
being resolved and raise ongoing security concerns about Applicant’s current trustworthiness and
judgment.  In this regard, we note that Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM)
states Applicant failed to provide any evidence of actions taken to resolve the delinquent debt. 
Applicant was sent a copy of the FORM and was given 30 days to submit additional information. 
He did not submit a response to the FORM.  It is well established that promises to pay off delinquent
debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of timely debt repayment.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 07-09304 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2008). 
 
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: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board