KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner
that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07696.a1
DATE: 09/25/2017
DATE: September 25, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07696
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 May
22, 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 decision
on the written record.  On June 7, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his analysis of
the mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous, rendering
his overall decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we
affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR lists six delinquent debts, which he admitted with an explanation.  The
debts include charged-off credit cards and a line-of-credit.  They total over $64,500.  Applicant has
been employed by a Defense contractor since 2015.  Applicant divorced in 2004, which he stated
was a cause of his financial problems.  He became financially overextended a few years later and
had to take another job in a different state, though at a reduced salary.  He had about nine months
of unemployment.  He sought help from a credit repair company.  However, the company resolved
few of Applicant’s debts.  He stopped using the service but continued to have unpaid delinquent
debts.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to things such as Applicant’s divorce and unemployment that affected his
financial situation.  He noted, however, that Applicant discontinued the credit repair service before
resolving his debts.  Despite steady employment he has not presented evidence of debt resolution,
nor has he shown that he sought financial counseling.  The Judge stated that the evidence left him
with doubts about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence such as his divorce, unemployment, and the debt consolidation
company that he hired.  He notes that at least some of his debts have been turned over to collection
companies and contends that it takes a while to set aside the funds to pay them.  He also discusses
his circumstances in light of the whole-person factors, contending that he has shown mitigation of
the concerns raised by his financial problems.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Neither has he shown 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).  Moreover, we conclude that the Judge took into account
all aspects of the record evidence which bore upon Applicant’s trustworthiness and reliability, which
is what a whole-person analysis requires.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-00540 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan.
5, 2007).
  
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: Williams S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board