KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s argument is, in effect, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-03438.a1
DATE: 10/5/2017
DATE: October 5, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03438
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 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 hearing. 
On July 26, 2017, after the hearing, 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 has been employed by a Federal contractor since January 2015.  His SOR lists
numerous delinquent debts, one of which is a lease that he co-signed with his son, though the
predominance of them are medical expenses.  Applicant hired a credit counseling service to assist
him in resolving his debts, and the Judge found that four of those listed in the SOR had been
addressed.  However, for the balance, she found the opposite.  She stated that Applicant’s efforts to
resolve his debts did not begin until he had received the SOR, despite their having been in existence
for several years.
Applicant attributed his financial problems to several periods of unemployment, a lack of
health insurance, and a divorce.  He stated that, after his divorce, he moved four times and changed
insurance companies.  Sometimes medical bills were not transferred to the new carrier.  When
interviewed about his debts by a Government investigator, Applicant advised that he would pay all
of his outstanding debts.  In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he was in the process of
determining the validity of charges and would have the information at the time of the hearing.  As
stated above, many of the SOR debts had been delinquent since 2013 and longer.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that most of Applicant’s debts are over four years old and remain
unresolved.  She stated that she could not conclude that applicant’s financial problems were unlikely
to recur.  Though noting circumstances outside his control that affected his financial problems, the
Judge found that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to them.  She cited to
evidence that applicant’s efforts to resolve his problems did not occur until after he had received the
SOR.  She noted the credit counseling firm that Applicant has hired but stated that it is too early to
conclude that he is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay creditors.
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s unemployment, lack of health
insurance, and divorce.  On the other hand, she also cited to Applicant’s continuous employment
since January 2015 and to his relative tardiness in addressing his financial problems.  She stated that
there is little evidence to show that, once employed, Applicant undertook responsible action to
address his delinquent debts.
Discussion
Applicant contends that he has successfully mitigated all of the allegations in the SOR.  He
cites to his exhibits, which, he believes, show that his financial problems are under control.  The
Judge discussed much of Applicant’s evidence, both in her findings and in her analysis.  Applicant’s
argument is, in effect, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which 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 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24, 2017).  Given the
Judge’s findings about the relative age of Applicant’s debts and his having undertaken to resolve
them only after having received the SOR, we conclude that the Judge’s decision is sustainable. 
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