KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s arguments on appeal are not enough to rebut the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither is it enough to show that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-08779.a1
DATE: 11/3/2017
DATE: November 3, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-08779
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Andrew G. Dualan, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
8, 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 July 25, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 divorced in 2012.  Her ex-husband lost his job shortly before the divorce and
was out of work for a year.  During their marriage, Applicant and her ex-husband were discharged
in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  A few years later they filed under Chapter 13, but it was dismissed. 
Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts, for medical expenses and an automobile
repossession, in addition to the two bankruptcy actions.  Applicant states that she could pay the
debts, but she disputes them.  She contends that she has rebuilt her credit rating since her divorce. 
However, at the time she completed her security clearance application, Applicant had taken no
action to resolve the debts that came to be alleged in the SOR.
Though the Judge noted Applicant’s contention that her ex-husband was not a good manager
of the couple’s finances, he stated that she did not produce evidence, such as a divorce decree, to
show that her ex-husband bore responsibility for the debts at issue in this case.  In her response to
the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Applicant contended that she could easily pay off her debts
but had been advised by a law firm to wait until her dispute of a debt alleged to be owed to a bank
has been resolved.  The Judge found it unclear whether the law firm had actually taken measures to
address Applicant’s financial problems.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted Applicant’s divorce and a downturn in the economy, which were
circumstances beyond her control.  However, he stated that she had not produced any documentation
to show responsible action in regard to her debts.  He specifically stated that Applicant had not
provided documentary corroboration to show a basis for any disputes of her debs.  The Judge noted
language in the FORM that placed Applicant on notice of her duty to provide evidence in support
of her claims of debt resolution or to dispute the legitimacy of her debts.  He stated that the only
evidence of debt resolution is Applicant’s uncorroborated statements.  In the whole-person analysis,
the Judge reiterated his findings about Applicant’s divorce.  However, he stated that she had not
addressed the specific allegations in the SOR, persisting with the belief that her ex-husband was
solely responsible for their joint debts.
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes references to matters from outside the record, which we cannot
consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  She contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence.  She
states that her debts were jointly incurred with her ex-husband and that she had discharged her share
of the obligations.  She cites to her having hired a law firm to assist in resolving her problems and
lists her professional achievements, her education, etc.  She also contends that the debts arose a long
time ago and, therefore, have been mitigated through the passage of time.  Applicant’s arguments
on appeal are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in
the record.  Neither are they 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).  We note Applicant’s argument about the age of her debts.  However, unpaid debts
are an ongoing course of conduct for the purpose of DOHA adjudications.    See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2017).  
In a proceeding under the Directive, it is the applicant’s duty to present evidence in
mitigation of the concerns raised in the SOR.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  In the case before us, the Judge’s
conclusion that Applicant had not presented sufficient mitigating evidence is sustainable.  “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