KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: It is well established that an applicant’s delinquent debts can raise security concerns.
While an absence of prior security violations is a matter that a Judge should consider, along with
all the other evidence in the record, it does not preclude a Judge from concluding that an
applicant’s circumstances present security concerns that the applicant failed to mitigate.  The
Government does not have to wait until an applicant has compromised or mishandled classified
information before it can deny the applicant a clearance.  Even individuals with good prior
records can encounter circumstances in which their judgment and reliability might be
compromised. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-04415.a1
DATE: 03/16/2018
DATE: March 16, 2018
In Re:
----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04415
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
February 28, 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 November 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The SOR alleged that Applicant owed 19 delinquent debts totaling about $30,000.  All of
the allegations are supported by credit reports and disclosures he made in his security clearance
applications and a background interview.  He did not provide any documentation that he paid, or that
he is paying, any of the alleged debts.  Applicant did not mitigate the Government’s security
concerns.
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant stated that he has a record of being a solid citizen, including
service in the military for 11 years; that his financial situation is improving; and that he qualified
for a Veterans Affairs loan to purchase a home and for disability payments.  He argues the Judge’s
conclusion that he is a security risk is not based on sound evidence.  This argument amounts to a
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the
Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016).   
Applicant also argues there is nothing in his record to indicate that he is a security risk.  It
is well established that an applicant’s delinquent debts can raise security concerns.  Guideline F
states that “[f]ailure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may
indicated poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all
of which can raises questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect
classified or sensitive information” and “[a]n individual who is overextended is at greater risk of
having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds.”1  While an absence of
prior security violations is a matter that a Judge should consider, along with all the other evidence
in the record, it does not preclude a Judge from concluding that an applicant’s circumstances present
security concerns that the applicant failed to mitigate.  The Government does not have to wait until
an applicant has compromised or mishandled classified information before it can deny the applicant
a clearance.  Even individuals with good prior records can encounter circumstances in which their
judgment and reliability might be compromised.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-14648 at 3 (App. Bd.
Sep. 9, 2015);  Adams v. Laird, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 (D. C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S.
1039 (1970).  
1 Directive, Encl. 2, App A ¶ 18.  
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: William S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy       
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board