ISCR Case No. 08-10221.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Although Applicant’s financial problems were affected by unemployment and a marital breakup, she demonstrated no track record of financial responsibility. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-10221.a1 DATE: 01/21/2010 DATE: January 21, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-10221

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 26, 2009, DOHA 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 November 13, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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 ignored evidence favorable to Applicant and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had several delinquent debts. She acknowledged that Applicant’s financial problems originated in a period of unemployment and from a marital breakup. However, she concluded that Applicant has not demonstrated a track record of financial responsibility. “Applicant has experienced financial difficulties since at least 2005, but she has addressed them only recently. Applicant’s financial problems began when she was a mature adult, and she failed to address her delinquent debts for a significant period, a decision that raises concerns about her judgment and reliability.” Decision at 7. Applicant contends on appeal that the Judge either ignored or mis-weighed significant record evidence, including the circumstances under which she first experienced her financial problems, the extent to which she has paid off debts, and her development of a debt management plan. However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07- 00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009); ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008). In any event, the Judge’s decision demonstrates that she considered the evidence favorable to Applicant, but that she plausibly explained why she concluded that Applicant had, nevertheless, failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes 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 decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 8. “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).

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board