KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant claims the two unresolved debts were “taken care of,” but does not point to
any evidence in the record that supports that proposition. He also cites to various conditions that
have contributed to his financial problems. Applicant’s arguments, however, are neither
sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor
enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-00844.a1
DATE: 07/25/2017
DATE: July 25, 2017    
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00844
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
September 16, 2016, 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 May 5, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 47-year-old employee of a government contractor.  The SOR alleged three
delinquent debts totaling about $46,000.  The delinquent debts are identified in credit reports
admitted into evidence.  Applicant resolved one of those debts, i.e., a mortgage account that was
delinquent for about $800. 
The other two delinquent debts remain unresolved, which include a mortgage account in the
approximate amount of $45,000.  Applicant initially paid in full for the mortgaged property.  He
later obtained a loan on that property to pay bills.  At some point his monthly mortgage payments
increased from $575 to $2,500.  He was unable to pay the higher amount and thought the property
was foreclosed.  He later learned the foreclosure was never perfected.  He testified that he contacted
the creditor and is now going though the loan modification process.  The current status of the debt
was not provided. 
Applicant attributed his financial problems to assisting his divorced parents with their
medical conditions.  He also assists financially his adult child and grandchild, and he has a medical
condition that requires costly medication.  He testified that he owns a total of eight properties; five
are paid in full and he is making payments on the other three.  He owed two other properties that
were foreclosed.  He owns six vehicles, including a 2013 luxury vehicle, 2014 sports car, and 2016
truck.  His monthly incomes is about $10,900 and his monthly expenses are about $9,500.  
Applicant has a long history of financial delinquencies.  Even though he encountered
conditions beyond his control that contributed to his financial problems, he failed to establish that
he acted responsibly with respect to his debts.  There are no clear indications that his financial
problems are being resolved or are under control.  
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant claims the two unresolved debts were “taken care of,” but does
not point to any evidence in the record that supports that proposition.1  Appeal Brief at 1.  He also
cites to various conditions that have contributed to his financial problems.  Applicant’s arguments,
however, are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record nor 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. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015). 
1 At the hearing, Applicant presented part of an exhibit that was written in Spanish.  The Judge advised
Applicant  that only the English sections of the exhibit would be admitted into evidence.  Applicant was afforded the
opportunity to provide a translation of the Spanish sections, but he did not provide anything further.  See, Decision at
2, note 1.  
 
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: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board