KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence. However, a
Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record, and Applicant’s brief is
not sufficient to rebut that presumption. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-00076.a1
DATE: 10/20/2017
DATE: October 20, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00076
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
2, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 6, 2017, after the hearing, 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 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 was employed by a Defense contractor from July 2016 to July 2017, and for the
Government and Government contractors in prior years.  Since 2010, he has experienced periods
of unemployment off and on for a total of about 17 months, with a result that he suffered financial
hardships.  Applicant’s delinquent debts include consumer credit accounts and medical costs. 
Applicant provided no documentary evidence to show that these debts have been resolved or
disputed.  One of them became delinquent in 2008 and was charged off in 2012.  Applicant has no
savings and about $400 in a checking account.  After the hearing, his employer let him go, and he
has been out of work ever since.  He was previously fired because of a dispute over his work
schedule and his use of personal leave.  He has provided no documentary evidence of financial
counseling or other professional assistance. 
Applicant failed to list his delinquent financial accounts on his 2012 and 2016 security
clearance applications (SCAs).  He claimed that his omissions were due to oversight and also that
his accounts were on his credit reports and would therefore have been discovered by the
Government.  He also stated that he was “not thinking” when he completed the SCAs.  He has
previously completed about six SCAs and has listed his financial problems in doing so.  He also
failed to list civil court actions against him, contending that he thought he only needed to list active
lawsuits, not those that were settled.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cleared Applicant for some of the SOR debts and some of the alleged false
statements.  However, for those described above, he entered adverse findings.  The Judge stated that
Applicant did not present evidence to show that he was addressing his debts and that Applicant’s
claim to have about $400 after expenses each month is not credible.  The Judge stated that
Applicant’s financial problems do not appear to be under control.  He stated that there is not enough
evidence of responsible action in regard to Applicant’s debts to establish mitigation.
The Judge found that the omissions described above were deliberate.  He cited to Applicant’s
long history of completing SCAs and to Applicant’s acknowledgment that he should have disclosed
his debts and court actions.  He concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied to
these deliberate omissions.  
Discussion
Applicant’s arguments include challenges to the Judge’s treatment of a mortgage account
and to some student loans.  However, the Judge entered favorable findings regarding these debts. 
Therefore, any error he committed was harmless.  Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider
all of the evidence.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the
record, and Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24, 2017).  Applicant cites to his job loss, noting that without a
clearance he will not be able to secure future employment.  The Directive does not permit us to
consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd.
Feb. 16, 2017).  Applicant contends that he has satisfied the mitigating conditions, but an ability to
argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not 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.
15-08711, supra.  In particular, the Judge’s findings and analysis of Applicant’s omissions from his
SCAs is sustainable.  
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  Refusal to provide truthful answers during the security clearance process “will normally
result in an unfavorable . . . security clearance action[.]” Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 15(b).  See also
ISCR Case No. 15-08255 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 22, 2017).  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