ISCR Case No. 12-11371.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge found that two SOR debts were duplicates of two others. For each pair she entered favorable findings for one debt and adverse findings for the other. An applicant suffers no prejudice when a Judge enters favorable findings for one of two duplicative allegations. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-11371.a1 DATE: 07/08/2016 DATE: July 8, 2016 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-11371

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 February 11, 2015, 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 19, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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’s formal findings were inconsistent 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’s SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, most of which the Judge resolved in his favor. She entered adverse findings for three: a revolving charge account for furniture, a medical debt, and a credit line. The first and third of these were reduced to judgments. The Judge found that Applicant had other debts which were not alleged, including $12,000 for Federal taxes. The Judge stated that she was considering the non-alleged debts for such things as evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, performing a whole-person analysis, etc.1 Decision at 9, note 4. Applicant attributed his financial problems to a diminution of his household income and to a medical problem. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted evidence that Applicant’s problems were affected by circumstances outside his control. However, she concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts. She cited to evidence that, due to a decrease in his monthly mortgage payments, Applicant had additional funds with which to address his debts but failed to do so. She also stated that wage garnishments in response to court-ordered judgments do not equate to good-faith efforts to resolve debts. She acknowledged that Applicant had a good work record but concluded that, based on his current circumstances, Applicant had not mitigated the concerns in his case.

Applicant notes that the Judge found that two SOR debts were duplicates of two others. For each pair she entered favorable findings for one debt and adverse findings for the other. He argues that the Judge’s formal findings are not consistent. We find nothing inconsistent or erroneous about this. The Judge stated specifically that she found as she did in order to avoid the appearance that Applicant’s financial problems were worse than they actually were. Decision at 12. See ISCR Case No. 97-0440 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1998) to the effect that an applicant suffers no prejudice when a Judge enters favorable findings for one of two duplicative allegations. Applicant’s brief addresses his tax debt. He cites to evidence, some of which is not in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s comments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). We find no error in the manner in which the Judge treated this debt. The Judge examined the relevant data 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

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

1 See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07219 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012).