KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge erred by “doubling” the correct amount of his assets. 
The Judge found that Applicant had “a stocks and bonds investment portfolio and 401(k) account
statement reflecting that [he] has assets valued at well over $2 million, plus other bank account
and IRA statements showing his substantial net worth.”  In his appeal brief, Applicant challenges
that finding by pointing to his testimony that he had about $1.2 million in stocks and bonds.  We
note that, on a Personal Financial Statement, Applicant listed his total assets as being over
$1,742,000, which included real estate, stocks and bonds, and other assets.  Even though the
Judge may have miscalculated Applicant’s total assets, this was a harmless error because it did
not likely affect the outcome of the case.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-02302.a1
DATE: 06/26/2019
DATE: June 26, 2019
)
In Re: )
)
------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02302
)
)
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
October 19, 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 March 29, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 erred in his findings of
fact and conclusions 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, who is 52 years old, has worked for a Federal contractor for 22 years.  His wife
is deceased, and his two adult children reside with him.  He has held a security clearance without any
incident for over 20 years.  
The SOR alleged four delinquent debts.  The Judge found for Applicant on three of those
debts and against him on a charged-off second mortgage.  In 2006, Applicant co-invested with others
in two homes and also purchased a third home for himself.  After the real-estate market collapsed,
the two investment homes were sold for losses.  One loss was a few hundred dollars, while the other
was about $15,000.  
Applicant tried unsuccessfully to dispose of the third home through a short sale.  He struggled
to make the mortgage payments, even obtaining a home-equity line of credit of about $98,000 to
make those payments.  His attempts to sell the home were unsuccessful.  Eventually, he defaulted
on the first and second mortgages totaling about $300,000.  In 2014, the home was foreclosed and
sold at auction to a loan-servicing company for $120,000.      
Shortly after the foreclosure sale, Applicant received a demand for about $230,000 from
Creditor X, who was not the original lender of the two mortgages.  Applicant assumed the amount
was incorrect and discarded the demand.  “He was confused and thought that ‘charged-off’ on his
credit report meant forgiven.  He also thought that aged-off his credit report accounts were closed.” 
Decision at 3.  He did not contact Creditor X or the original lender from about 2014 until late 2018
to try to resolve this deficiency.  He acknowledged he should have done more.  
After his background interview in mid-2018, Applicant realized Creditor X was a collection
agent for the original lender of the mortgages or its successor creditor.  He contacted Creditor X after
he received the SOR.  In early 2019, he was able to settle the first mortgage for $33,000.  He “only
recently started communicating with” the original lender to resolve the second mortgage, which was
charged off for about $83,000, and provided a packet of correspondence showing his efforts to
resolve it.  Decision at 3.  
2
Applicant has completed some financial counseling.   His biweekly gross pay is about $5,400. 
He has assets valued over $2 million.   
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant experienced conditions beyond his control, such as the death of his spouse in 2017
and the real-estate market collapse in 2008, but he did not act responsibly under the circumstances. 
“He testified that he thought charged-off meant forgiven, and that if delinquent debts aged off his
credit reports, they were closed.  I did not find that testimony to be credible.”  Decision at 6.  He has
substantial assets available to pay his delinquent debts.  He deliberately ignored creditors between
2014 and 2018, while amassing a large investment portfolio.  The second mortgage still has not been
satisfied.  
Discussion    
Applicant contends that Judge erred in four of his findings and conclusions.  We examine
finding of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the
contrary evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-04094
at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2018). 
(1) Applicant contends that the Judge erred in a finding regarding the timing of his efforts
to resolve the second mortgage.  On Page 3 of the Decision, the Judge found that, “[a]fter his
clearance interview in June 2018, Applicant began to put the pieces together and realized that
[Creditor X] was a collection agent for [the original mortgage lender] or its successor creditors.” 
Applicant argues that he did not determine that Creditor X was the holder of the second mortgage
until February 2019, which explains why he did not take any earlier action.  In essence, he is
contending the Judge used an eight-month period of inaction (i.e., the period between Applicant’s
background interview in June 2018 and his claimed date for identifying the creditor in February
2019) to conclude he did not act responsibly in addressing the second mortgage.  He categorizes the
eight-month period as an “error.” We do not find Applicant’s argument persuasive.  In this regard,
it should be noted that we do not consider individual sentences in a decision in isolation.  Rather,
we look at each aspect of a decision in light of the whole and interpret individual portions in their
proper context.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13664 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 15, 2013).  In the decision,
the Judge does not mention that eight-month period in his analysis.  In fact, there is scant reason to
believe that specific time period was an independent factor in the Judge’s decision.  Instead, in
examining whether Applicant acted responsibly in addressing the second mortgage, the Judge
focused on the four-year period from when Applicant received the demand for the balance due on
both foreclosed mortgages in 2014 (which he discarded without conducting any inquiry) to when he
eventually contacted the creditor in late 2018 and early 2019.  Based on our review of the record, the
Applicant has failed to show that the eight-month period standing alone had any impact on the
Judge’s decision.  
3
(2) Applicant contends that the Judge erred by “doubling” the correct amount of his assets.
Appeal Brief at 8.  On Page 3 of the Decision, the Judge found that Applicant had “a stocks and
bonds investment portfolio and 401(k) account statement reflecting that [he] has assets valued at well
over $2 million, plus other bank account and IRA statements showing his substantial net worth.” 
In his appeal brief, Applicant challenges that finding by pointing to his testimony (Tr. at 23) that he
had about $1.2 million in stocks and bonds.  We note that, on a Personal Financial Statement
submitted with his SOR response, Applicant listed his total assets as being over $1,742,000, which
included real estate, stocks and bonds, and other assets.  Even though the Judge may have
miscalculated Applicant’s total assets, this was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the
outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013).  The key
point is that Applicant had substantial assets to resolve the second mortgage but had not done so by
the close of the record.  
(3) Applicant challenges the Judge’s credibility determination.  In doing so, he contends the
Judge erred in concluding that “[he] testified . . . that if delinquent debts aged off his credit report,
they were closed.”  Appeal Brief at 9, quoting from Decision at 6.  He asserts that nowhere in the
record can such testimony be found, and he also points to a portion of his testimony (Tr. at 73) in
which he indicated that he was unaware debts age off credit reports.  He argues that the Judge’s error
regarding his position about the aging off of debts from credit reports was a significant factor that
contributed to the Judge making a flawed credibility determination.  We do not find this assignment
of error convincing.  Of note, Applicant’s appeal brief quotes from only portions of the Judge’s
decision and the transcript that are pertinent to his claim.  In determining whether the Judge
committed harmful error, we will examine the record in its entirety.  As quoted above, the full text
of the Judge’s sentence at issue reads as follows:  “[Applicant] testified that he thought charged-off
meant forgiven, and that if delinquent debts aged off his credit reports, they were closed.”  Decision
at 6.  At the hearing, Applicant testified in pertinent part as follows: 
[Applicant]:  . . .  And [a debt] was listed as charged off, which I didn’t know what
charged off meant.  I thought charged off meant basically relief from debt, so it was
forgiven.”  [Tr. at 60.] 
* * *
[Judge]:  Okay.  So, if I’m understanding you correctly, this first came to your
attention -- you thought it might have been waived or forgiven or something?
[Applicant]: Yes, Your Honor.  [Tr. at 61.]
* * *
[Applicant]:  . . .  So, when both of them [debts] disappeared off of my credit report,
that is when I thought, well, it’s all resolved.  
[Judge]:  Well, you understand that debts age off your credit report, like after --  
4
[Applicant]:  Actually, I didn’t know that.  I found that out after talking to him, after
talking to the investigator --  [Tr. at 73.]
Based on a review of the record, Applicant’s claim essentially boils down to a challenge to the
Judge’s use of the phrase “aged off” in the sentence at issue.  We do not find Applicant’s claim to
be of such significance as to warrant any corrective action.  Furthermore, we are required to give
deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  Applicant has not provided
us a sufficient reason to disturb that determination.
(4) Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that he “deliberately ignored creditors and
collection agents for the period between 2014 and 2018."  Appeal Brief at 11, quoting from Decision
at 6.   He argues that there is no record evidence that he ignored creditors during that time period.
Under the Directive, however, Applicant had the burden to present witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate proven security concerns.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Applicant
has not pointed to any evidence that shows he acted responsibly in addressing the two foreclosed
mortgages during that time period.  We note he resolved the primary foreclosed mortgage in
February 2019, shortly before the hearing.  From our review of the record, the Judge’s conclusion
that Applicant ignored his creditors from 2014 to 2018 was a reasonable inference based on the
evidence that was presented.  We conclude the Judge committed no error in reaching the challenged
conclusion.      
Applicant further contends that the Judge’s decision is not supported by the weight of the
evidence.  In doing so, he argues the decision was skewed due to the purported errors discussed
above, and he claims the Judge ignored the actions he has taken to resolve the foreclosed mortgages
since November 2018.  He also notes that he testified that he made efforts to resolve the debts in the
summer of 2018. In essence, he is arguing that he acted responsibly in addressing the foreclosed
mortgages.   His arguments, however, are not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00844 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul.
25, 2017).  Additionally, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge
to make a favorable security clearance decision.  As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the
evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence,
or vice versa.  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to
argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed
the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016).
Applicant has failed to show the Judge committed any harmful error.  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. 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
5
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor
of the national security.” 
6
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
7