KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not challenged the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusions regarding
the falsification allegation, which is sufficient independently to support the unfavorable decision.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00782.a1
DATE: 06/29/2018
DATE: June 29, 2018
In Re:
----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00782
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
April 27, 2017, 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. 
At the hearing, the SOR was amended to add an allegation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). 
On March 27, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom 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 and Analysis
Applicant, a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor, is not married and has no
children.  Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that he had two delinquent debts and that his financial
problems were linked to gambling.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the two debts and
against him on the gambling-related allegation.  
Applicant gambled regularly from about 2008 to 2012.  During that time period, he withdrew
about $75,000 in cash advances from credit cards for gambling.  He voluntarily filed a lifetime self-
exclusion from casinos in his state of residence.  He abstained from gambling for a couple of years,
but then resumed gambling every month or two in another state.   Although he no longer took cash
advances from credit cards, he became financially overextended due to gambling in 2015 and 2016. 
He has not obtained counseling for his gambling problem.   In 2017, he voluntary filed a lifetime
self-exclusion from casinos in the other state.  “Applicant testified that he was previously addicted
to gambling, but he believes that he is no longer addicted.”  Decision at 3.
In a background interview in 2016, Applicant attributed a mortgage delinquency to holiday
spending.  He did not disclose his gambling losses and stated he had not experienced any continued
debt due to gambling.  
Disqualifying condition 19(h), borrowing money or engaging in significant financial
transactions to fund gambling or pay gambling debts, applied.  Applicant has not sought counseling
or other support for his gambling, and his recent relapse continues to cast doubt on his judgment and
reliability.  Even though he has taken action to exclude himself from casinos in two states, his self-
exclusion has not worked in the past.  He has not demonstrated that a relapse is unlikely to recur. 
Applicant also deliberately provided false or misleading information during his background
interview when he stated his mortgage deficiency was the result of holiday spending and omitted
information about his gambling losses.  This deliberate omission raises a significant security concern
that is not mitigated by his positive character evidence.
Discussion
2
In his appeal brief, Applicant emphasizes that he is self-excluded from casinos in two states,
i.e., the only locations where his gambling problems have occurred; that he has abstained from
gambling since late 2016; and that his mortgage loan delinquencies in 2015 and 2016 did not exceed
more than one month’s payment on each occasion.  He also contends that the Judge disregarded his
character evidence.  His arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record nor 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. 14-03747
at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015).  We note that Applicant has not challenged the Judge’s adverse
findings and conclusions regarding the falsification allegation, which is sufficient independently to
support the unfavorable decision.  Applicant states that the Judge’s decision has affected his
employment, since he requires a clearance for his job.  The Directive does not permit us to consider
the impact that an unfavorable decision might have upon an applicant.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-
10492 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2018).  
Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision.  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.”
3
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
4