KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A Judge must consider not only the extent to which an applicant has actually resolved
his debts but also the circumstances underlying them for what they may reveal about his
judgement and reliability. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03778.a1
DATE: 08/04/2017
DATE: August 4, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03778
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 14, 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 May 30, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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’s SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, for a student loan, medical expenses, etc. 
The Judge resolved all but two of them in Applicant’s favor.  The two that she found against him
were for $937 and $875 respectively.  Regarding the first, the Judge found that Applicant made
inconsistent statements about them.  In his interview he stated that he disputed the debt.  In his
Answer to the SOR, he stated that he owed the debt and would pay it off.  In his response to the File
of Relevant Material (FORM), Applicant acknowledged that he had admitted the debt earlier but that
he now does not believe the amount alleged is accurate and, accordingly, disputed it.  Applicant has
not provided proof of actions to resolve this debt.
As for the second, Applicant acknowledged owing the debt but that he had fallen behind in
paying it, due to the economy.  In his Answer to the SOR, however, he denied the debt, claiming that
it had been removed from his credit report.  However, a 2016 credit report shows that this account
was opened in 2011 and is “seriously past due.”  Decision at 3.  Applicant provided no evidence to
show that the debt had been removed from his credit report, paid, or resolved.  He provided no
information about a plan to resolve his delinquent debts.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that the two debts described above are not resolved, despite Applicant
having been on notice of them for several years.  His claim that the $875 debt is no longer on his
credit report is not accurate.  These debts are years old and there is insufficient evidence that they
are unlikely to recur.  He provided no evidence that his overall financial problems originated from
circumstances outside his control.  Although he asserted that the poor economy caused him to fall
behind in paying his bills, he failed to explain why this was so.  The Judge concluded that Applicant
had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts, noting that even the medical debts,
which she resolved in his favor, had been paid only well after the receipt of the SOR.  She stated that
Applicant’s failure to pay his medical debts for years detracted from the extent to which his actions
showed good-faith.  Applicant has had no financial counseling and she stated that there are no clear
indications that Applicant’s problems are under control. 
Discussion
Applicant argues that the Judge did not perform a sufficient whole-person analysis.  Among
other things, he notes that the Judge resolved almost all of the allegations in his favor, and the two
that she found against him had a combined total of under $2000.  He contends that if the Judge had
properly weighed the entirety of the evidence, she would have concluded that he had met his burden
of persuasion as to mitigation.  
We have considered this argument in light of the record as a whole.  Admittedly, the total
amount of debt that constituted the basis of the adverse formal findings is relatively small. 
However, a Judge must consider not only the extent to which an applicant has actually resolved his
debts but also the circumstances underlying them for what they may reveal about his judgment and
reliability.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).  
In the case before us, the Judge found that Applicant did not resolve his medical debts until
after receipt of the SOR, which she concluded evidenced a lack of good-faith.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 14-01243 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 18, 2015) (Timing of debt payments is relevant in evaluating an
applicant’s case for mitigation).  She found that Applicant had not presented evidence in support of
his claimed nexus between his inability to pay his debts and the recent poor economy.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-00280 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2015), in which the applicant failed to establish
a connection between his delinquent debts and circumstances beyond his control that he claimed
were the cause.  She found that Applicant had not presented a plan to resolve his delinquent debts. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No.15-02903 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017) (An applicant must develop a
reasonable plan for repayment of delinquent debts).  She also cited to inconsistent statements that
Applicant had made about the two debts she found against him.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01056
at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015) for the proposition that inconsistent statements can undermine the
credibility in an applicant’s case for mitigation.
While it might on its face appear anomalous that the Judge entered favorable findings for
medical debts that she found lacking in evidence of good faith, we do not evaluate a Judge’s
decision based on individual findings or on sentences isolated from their overall context.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 11-13664 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 15, 2013).  To the contrary, we examine a Judge’s
decision in light of the record as a whole.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov.
18, 2016). Applying that requirement to the case at hand, we conclude that the Judge’s analysis
supports her overall adverse decision, despite an apparent inconsistency between that analysis and
some of her formal findings.  Given the record that was before the Judge, we conclude that her
adverse decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  
 
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