KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not made any voluntary payments on the alleged debts. The tax lien was
resolved through a tax levy of his military retirement pay.  The satisfaction of a debt through the
involuntary establishment of a garnishment or a tax levy is not the same as, or similar to, a good-
faith initiation of repayment by the debtor.  The timing of Applicant’s actions to resolve the
debts is an important factor to consider.  The Judge noted that Applicant’s financial problems
have existed for many years.  In his response to the FORM, Applicant stated that he started to
contact creditors to make arrangements to repay the debts in June 2017, which was five months
after issuance of the SOR. Favorable decision reversed.
CASENO: 16-03122.a1
DATE: 08/16/2018
DATE: August 17, 2018 
In Re:
-----------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03122
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
January 6, 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 decision
on the written record.  On May 9, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross granted Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s favorable
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we reverse. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact 
Applicant, who is a 58-year-old military retiree,  has been working for a defense contractor
since 2014.  The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $39,000.  In
his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each debt.  In responding to Department Counsel’s File
of Relevant Material (FORM), Applicant stated:
My debt has been accrued over several years of poor choices such as Gambling, bad
investments, bad decision making, trying to afford what I could not, and trying to
maintain a lifestyle that I thought would make others happy.  This has been
detrimental to me and has cost me greatly and has put me in the situation in which
I find myself now.1    
Applicant has “begun the process of consolidating his student loan debt” but provided no
further information (SOR ¶ 1.a); was resolving through garnishment a debt arising from a
repossessed vehicle (SOR ¶ 1.b); would pay a charged-off account pursuant to a settlement
agreement starting in July 2017 (SOR ¶ 1.c); paid a tax lien through a tax levy on his military
retirement pay (SOR ¶ 1.d); submitted evidence showing his bank would make the first payment on
a past-due automobile loan in June 2017 (SOR ¶ 1.e); will try other means to contact the creditor
of a repossessed vehicle after finding its number on a website was no longer in service (SOR ¶ 1.f);
called the creditor of a charged-off account who hung up on him after advising it had nothing on him
in its system (SOR ¶ 1.g); and provided no further information after stating he was told by a
collection agency that the original creditor recalled a past-due telephone debt (SOR ¶ 1.h).   The debt
in  SOR ¶ 1.h is not resolved, but the other debts are either resolved, being resolved, or good-faith
efforts have been taken to resolve them.  Applicant did not submit any character references or
evidence regarding his job performance.
1 Decision at 4, quoting from Applicant Exhibit A.
2
The Judge’s Analysis
Although Applicant’s financial problems have been in existence for many years, he is
diligently trying to resolve them.  He admits these problems are due to his own conduct.  He is
engaged in the time-consuming and frustrating process of following the debt through collection
agencies to find the current holder.  The tax lien has been resolved.  He has met his burden of
mitigating the security concerns.   He has learned his lesson and is now financially stable.2  
Discussion
There is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See
Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  The
applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate admitted
or proven facts.  The applicant has the burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable decision. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The standard applicable in security clearance decisions “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).  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”  Directive, Encl. 
2 App. A ¶ 2(b). 
The Appeal Board may reverse the Judge’s decision to grant, deny, or revoke a security
clearance if it is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.  In
deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are erroneous, we will review the decision to
determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory
explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the
choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to
consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary
to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of
opinion.  See ISCR Case No. 14-02563 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 28, 2015).
Department Counsel contends that the record in this case does not support the Judge’s
favorable mitigation analysis.  He argues that the Judge failed to consider important aspects of the
case and that his decision runs counter to the weight of the record evidence.  Department Counsel’s
arguments have merit. 
Department Counsel states that Applicant has not made any voluntary payments on the
alleged debts and points out the tax lien was resolved through a tax levy of his military retirement
2 In the Formal Findings, the Judge found for Applicant on Paragraph 1 of the SOR, but against him on each
of the subparagraphs.  Given the Judge’s conclusion that “Applicant did mitigate the security concern arising under the
guideline” (Decision at 8), the adverse findings for each subparagraph was obviously a typographical error or
administrative oversight.
3
pay.  The satisfaction of a debt through the involuntary establishment of a garnishment or a tax levy
is not the same as, or similar to, a good-faith initiation of repayment by the debtor.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 08-06058 at 6 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2009).  Additionally, the timing of Applicant’s actions
to resolve the debts is an important factor to consider.  The Judge noted that Applicant’s financial
problems have existed for many years.  In his response to the FORM, Applicant stated that he started
to contact creditors to make arrangements to repay the debts in June 2017, which was five months
after issuance of the SOR.3  As we stated in an earlier case,
an applicant who begins to resolve debts only after an SOR placed him on notice that
his clearance was in jeopardy may lack the judgment and self discipline to follow
rules and regulations over time or when there is no immediate threat to his own
interests.4 
Taking action to resolve long-term delinquent debts well after the initiation of the security clearance
process also undercuts a determination that such action constitutes a good-faith effort to resolve the
delinquencies.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03481 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2016).  Furthermore, the
Judge concluded that Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from some debts by
establishing repayment plans that were set to start in the near future.  As we have previously stated,
an intention to pay debts in the future is not a substitute for a track record of repayment or other
responsible approaches.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14570 at 3, n.3 (App. Bd. Oct. 23, 2013). 
Applicant’s evidence falls far short of establishing a “good-faith” or meaningful track record of
repayment of debts.  
We conclude that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to consider
important aspects of the case and runs contrary to the weight of the record evidence.  Furthermore,
we conclude that the record evidence, viewed as a whole, is not sufficient to mitigate the
Government’s security concerns under the Egan standard.  The decision is not sustainable.  
Order
The Decision is REVERSED.    
Signed: Michael Ra’anan              
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
3 Applicant actually said he started to contact “debtors” in June 2017.  His use of the term “debtors” instead of
“creditor” was obviously an error.  
4 ISCR Case No. 14-03358 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2015).
4
Signed: Charles C. Hale                
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
5