KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that she has not demonstrated
that her problems are resolved.  She contends that there is no evidence to show that her financial
difficulties will persist.  However, it is an applicant’s job to present evidence in mitigation. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s bankruptcy is too
recent to establish a track record of debt payment and thereby meet her burden of persuasion as to
mitigation is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-01762.a1
DATE: 06/26/2019
DATE: June 26, 2019
)
In Re: )
)
--------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01762
 )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
)
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 June
29, 2018, 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. 
On April 18, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 has been employed in low-paying jobs since 2007.  Her SOR lists numerous
delinquent debts, for vehicle accounts, education loans, medical expenses, utilities, etc.  About a
month after she answered the SOR, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and most
of her debts were discharged in March 2019.  Her education loans were not discharged, however,
and she has been making small, regular payments on them.  She was not successful in having her
education debts placed in forbearance.  Applicant makes about $425 each pay period.  Her character
references recommend her for a clearance, although they did not disclose knowledge of her security-
significant issues.  
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s bankruptcy discharge is too recent to establish a track
record of debt resolution.  Noting her monthly expenditures, he also concluded that she will still have
a problem with maintaining financial stability even after bankruptcy.  He stated that Applicant’s
“whole-person” evidence–for example, her character references–were not sufficient to meet her
burden of persuasion.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that she has not demonstrated that her
problems are resolved.  She contends that there is no evidence to show that her financial difficulties
will persist.  However, it is an applicant’s job to present evidence in mitigation.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15. 
In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s bankruptcy is too recent to establish a track
record of debt payment and thereby meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation is sustainable. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04565 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015) (Promises to maintain financial
good health are not a substitute for a track record of debt payment).   See also ISCR Case No. 18-
02250 at 3 (App. Bd. May 23, 2019) (An ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence
is not sufficient to show that a Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law).         
The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
2
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse 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 Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. 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
3