KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Adverse rulings alone do not demonstrate judicial bias.  We have examined the
Judge’s Decision in light of the record that was before her.  We find nothing therein that would
lead a reasonable person to conclude that she lacked the requisite impartiality.  It was not
erroneous for the Judge to evaluate Applicant’s strategies for addressing his mortgage debts for
what they may suggest about his judgment and reliability, even if those strategies were permitted
by law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-03852.a1
DATE: 10/31/2018
DATE: October 31, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03852
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Dan Meyer, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
November 13, 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 July 12, 2018, after considering the record, 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge was biased against
Applicant; whether the Judge erred in concluding that Applicant’s financial circumstances raised
security concerns; whether the Judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence; and 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 served in the military, both on active duty and in the National Guard, from
1994 until the present.  Married with two children, he has worked for his current employer since
2001.  
Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts, resulting from real estate transactions and
credit card accounts.  Applicant began investing in real estate in about 2000, but in about 2007 these
rental properties were valued less than the amounts owed on the mortgages.  He sought the
assistance of an attorney, as a result of which he renegotiated settlements for some of his debts.  In
his security clearance application, Applicant disclosed an additional rental property debt that was
not alleged in the SOR.  Two of his properties were the subject of foreclosure sales, and the lenders
have cancelled Applicant’s obligations on the resulting deficiencies.  For other non-alleged property
debts, Applicant has sought loan modifications, with success in one instance.
Two of the SOR debts were accounts owed to banks, at least one of which was a credit card. 
The Judge found that Applicant had resolved one of these accounts but not the other.  Regarding
three mortgage debts alleged in the SOR, Applicant stated that his attorney advised him to stop
paying the mortgages and attempt to negotiate with the lenders for loan modifications, short sales,
etc.  The Judge found that these debts were not resolved as of the close of the record.
Applicant and his wife have a gross income of about $170,000.  He earns additional income
during periods of active duty, and his wife receives bonuses that increase their income by about
$25,000.  Applicant and his wife live within their means.  
Applicant submitted character evidence, which describes him as trustworthy, honest, reliable,
professional, and dependable.  He is active in community and charitable undertakings.  Applicant
also submitted a copy of a letter from his commanding general requesting that he be permitted to
serve past his mandatory retirement date.
2
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s delinquent debts established three disqualifying
conditions set forth under Guideline F: inability to satisfy debts, unwillingness to satisfy debts
regardless of the ability to do so, and a history of not meeting financial obligations.  Directive, Encl.
2, App. A ¶ 19 (a-c).  In analyzing Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge acknowledged that the
economic downturn that occurred in about 2007 was something he could not have predicted. 
However, she found that he willingly assumed economic risks when he continued to purchase
properties.  She concluded that Applicant’s proposed solutions to his difficulties may reduce the
amounts he has to pay his creditors but that they do not necessarily show reliability.  She noted
Applicant’s significant income and that he is financially solvent.  She also extended less weight to
debts that were forgiven than she did to those that were resolved through payment or settlement. 
In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s educational level and his
military service.  She reiterated that, while Applicant’s strategy for addressing his debts may be legal
and in his best economic interests, it does not necessarily demonstrate responsible action towards
his creditors.  She concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion.
Discussion
Applicant has submitted matters from outside the record.  We cannot consider new evidence
on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Applicant contends that the Judge did not render a decision that was in the interest of
national security but, rather, one that reflected her own personal values concerning financial
responsibility.  Judges are presumed to be unbiased, and a party who alleges a Judge was biased has
a heavy burden of persuasion.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02391 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2018).
Bias involves partiality for or against a party, predisposition to decide a case or issue without regard
to the merits, or other indicia of a lack of impartiality.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09421 at 2 (App.
Bd. Nov. 15, 2017).  Adverse rulings alone do not demonstrate judicial bias.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 15-05047 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 8, 2017).  We have examined the Judge’s Decision in light of the
record that was before her.  We find nothing therein that would lead a reasonable person to conclude
that she lacked the requisite impartiality.  It was not erroneous for the Judge to evaluate Applicant’s
strategies for addressing his mortgage debts for what they may suggest about his judgment and
reliability, even if those strategies were permitted by law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-02246 at 2
(App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2017) for the proposition that even if debts have been removed by operation of
law a Judge may still consider the applicant’s circumstances for what they may reveal about his or
her clearance eligibility.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge was unbiased.
Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that his financial problems raise security
concerns.  He contends that Department Counsel did not prove a causal connection between his
financial strategies, which he characterizes as “economic gaming” (Appeal Brief at 10), and the
national security.  However, the Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between
proved or admitted circumstances under any of its guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility. 
3
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02595 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2018) .  Direct or objective evidence of
nexus is not required.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00507 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2018).  In the case
before us, Applicant’s admissions and the record evidence demonstrate a fairly substantial amount
of unpaid, and therefore ongoing, delinquent debt.  This debt load can fairly be characterized as a
history of financial problems that Applicant has not resolved.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03146
at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2018).  We find no reason to disturb the presumption that Applicant’s
problems bear a rational connection with a concern that he may be lacking in characteristics
essential to the protection of national security.  The nature of Applicant’s response to his debts,
whether “economic gaming” or otherwise, is a matter properly to be examined in the context of
Applicant’s burden of persuasion as to mitigation, as the Judge did.  We resolve this issue adversely
to Applicant.
Applicant contends that the Judge’s decision “shows neither evidence of such quality nor
weight to meet the substantial evidence requirement.”  He goes on to argue that a Judge’s decision
may be arbitrary and capricious even if the “specific findings of fact are supported by the record
evidence.”  Appeal Brief at 12-13.  We have evaluated the Judge’s Decision in light of the record
and conclude that her material findings are based upon substantial evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 16-02640 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2018).  Applicant’s argument appears in actuality to be a
challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.  However, an ability to argue for a different
interpretation of the evidence 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. 17-02463 at 2 (App. Bd.
Sep. 10, 2018).  Applicant’s brief cites to several Hearing Office cases which, he contends, support
his effort to obtain a favorable result.  We give due consideration to these cases.  However, each case
must be decided upon its own merits.  Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b).  Moreover, Hearing Office
decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 17-02145 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2018).
Applicant contends that during the processing of his case he received ineffective assistance
of counsel.  At the beginning of his brief, he states that, due to ineffective assistance of counsel, he
decided to act pro se.  In the conclusion, he argues that the counsel did not prepare a budget or
gather material exculpatory evidence.  Appeal Brief at 2, 13.  Assuming that the record is lacking
in evidence that Applicant wishes had been included, he does not explain why an O-5 in the U.S.
military with a degree from a renowned university could not have presented it himself.  More to the
point, the doctrine of ineffective assistance of counsel is not applicable to a DOHA proceeding.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02040 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2017). 
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.” 
4
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
5