WPC _I TLsɸJĄՈxEֶW3ڸm飁{9a},|pK|5J- Ծh gv3yO'#sM&:Wî\!X~RBp9%6b WNoWsPa%Lnlmo`WM"g^hczEjd|N3πDj:[??qD,1F5/pˁYhpI"F &~`x)lC*GT,R=sB秱!w#n%JN,d ܔ KEn,J&ּ-þoDaCZbm s""!.p%h}CjMP C4? NK-#ۘ&MD|l$0ϑt͹T;wSwƑq2B8>q!: W#U N % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m 0 Zh E 0D N c nmmm BHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEK;EJtFold3|xU(Y(2$ !USUS.,  XX      0  8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(#$  0   Y  $USUS.,XX      3    _ԀInthepast,wehavecautionedthatJudgeshavenoauthoritytoadviseonthequantumofevidencethatwould  mitigateasecurityconcernandnotedthatsuggestedactionsinasecurityclearanceadjudicationmayhavesignificant t ramificationsinotheraspectsofanapplicantslife.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1505849at2(App.Bd.Jul.17,2017). 8  d  $USUS.,XX      1    _ԀInhisappealbrief,Applicantalsoraisesargumentsconcerningthecellphonedebt.BecausetheJudgefound  infavorofApplicantonthecellphonedebt,weneednotaddressthosearguments.   $USUS.,XX      2    _ԀApplicantsappealbriefcontainsadocumentthathedidnotpreviouslyprovidetotheJudgeforconsideration.  ThisdocumentconstitutesnewevidencethattheAppealBoardcannotconsider.See,DirectiveX,X_ _Ԁ#XX,}#E3.1.29. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF;GuidelineE  DIGEST:AJudgemayconsidernonallegeddebts(a)inassessinganapplicantscredibility;(b)  inevaluatinganapplicantsevidenceofextenuation,mitigation,orchangedcircumstances;_(c)_Ԁin t consideringwhethertheapplicanthasdemonstratedsuccessfulrehabilitation;and(d)inapplying ` thewholepersonconcept.OurreviewofthedecisionrevealsthattheJudgeonlydiscussedthe L  allegeddebtsinevaluatingApplicantsevidenceinmitigationandchangeofcircumstances.We 8  findnobasisforconcludingthattheJudgeconsiderednonallegeddebtsinaninappropriate $ t manner.Adversedecisionaffirmed.  ` _CASENO_:1507369.a1  8  DATE:08/16/2017      `     h      p DATE:August16,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEGgA H InRe: C     ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AV) xdEgA  ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4  )  ! )  "  # pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1507369  \&  H' .؉7r. \XXp '    APPEALBOARDDECISION l( APPEARANCES 0"+  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  $X- JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel $0 .  FORAPPLICANT  &!0  Prose #X,X%&# h'"1     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnMay +>'6 1,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthatdecision ,*(7 securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)andGuidelineE(Personal -)8 Conduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).  DepartmentCounselrequestedahearing.OnJune7,2017,afterthehearing,AdministrativeJudge  PhilipS.HowedeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealedpursuantto  Directive_ _ԀE3.1.28andE3.1.30. t   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas L  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowingdiscussion,weaffirmthe 8  Judgesdecision. $ t   TheJudgesFindingsofFact   8    Applicantisa58yearoldmanagementofficialforadefensecontractor.Heretiredfromthe   militaryafter20yearsofservice.Hehadfiveperiodsofunemploymentbetween2001and2011.   HealsostatedthathiscompanylostseveralGovernmentcontracts,thatheusedhisincometokeep   othercontractsgoing,andthathedidnothavesufficientfundstopayotherdebts.     The_SOR_Ԁallegedthreedelinquentdebtstotalingover$38,000.Foroneofthosedebts, ` Applicantadmittedowing$2,160onaloanwithabalanceof$22,720.Hetestifiedheclosedthe L accountinearly2015whenhecouldnotpayit.Healsoclaimedhewasonlyauseroftheaccount, 8 buthiscreditreportsreflectthiswasajointaccountwithhiswife.Hetestifiedhiswifewasmaking $t paymentsontheaccount,buthesubmittednodocumentaryproofofthosepayments. `   Applicantdeniedowingacreditcardaccountthatwaschargedoffforabout$15,000.Credit 8 reportsfrom2014and2015showthatApplicantownedthisaccountasof1984,anditbecame $ delinquentinJune2014.Applicantclaimedthiswasacorporateaccountwithmultipleusers,and  hewasnotpersonallyliableforit.Hisdisputeofthisaccountwasnotresolvedatthetimeofthe  hearing.A2017creditreportshowsthisdebtwasthesubjectofacourtjudgmentinlate2015.  Afterthehearing,hewithdrewhisdisputeandmadeatemporarypaymentarrangementwithadebt  collectionagency. p     Applicantresolvedthethirddebt,acellphonecollectionaccountfor$290.Hisrecentcredit H! reportsalsoreflectedeightnonallegeddelinquentaccounts.Oneofthenonallegeddebtsreflected 4"  heowedover$40,000onacreditcardaccountthatwasatleast30daysdelinquent.  #p!   InOctober2014,Applicantsubmittedasecurityclearanceapplication(_SCA_)inwhichhedid $H # notdiscloseanyfinancialdelinquencies.Hedeliberatelyfalsifiedhis_SCA_,claiminghedidnot %4!$ checkhiscreditreportsbeforeansweringthequestionsandwasunderalotofstress.Basedonthe & "% longevityandmagnitudeoftwooftheallegeddebts,hehadtohaveknowntheyweredelinquentand ' #& shouldhavebeendisclosed. (#'   TheJudgesAnalysis  *%)     Applicantpaidthecellphonedebtafterthehearing.Heclaimshehasapartialrepayment X,'+ planforthecreditcarddebt,butprovidednoproofofpayments.Hehasnotreformedhisfinancial D-(, behavior,whichisrecent,frequent,andlikelytocontinue.    Applicantdeliberatelydidnotdiscloseacreditcardandcellphonedebtonhis_SCA_Ԁas  required.Thesedebtswereunpaidforyearsandheknewofthem.Hecontestedthatthesedebts t werehisobligations,butcreditreportsshowthesedebtswerehisresponsibility,eitherindividually ` orjointlywithhiswife.Hedidnotpresentanyevidencethathistheoryonnonliabilitywasvalid. L  Hiscontentionsinthefaceofprintedfactsdiminishhiscredibilityontheseissues.Histestimony 8  thathedidnotintentionallyfailtodisclosethedelinquentdebtisnotcredible. $ t   Discussion   L      ApplicantcontendstheJudgeerredinconcludingthecreditcarddebtandloanwerehis $  responsibility. #  1      ׀Hearguesthattheloanwassolelyhiswifesresponsibility,thatthecreditcarddebt   wasacorporateaccount,andthathesuccessfullydisputedthecreditcarddebt.Weexaminea   Judgesfindingstoseeiftheyaresupportedby suchrelevantevidenceasareasonablemindmight   acceptasadequatetosupportaconclusioninlightofallthecontraryevidenceinthesamerecord.   Directive_ _ԀE3.1.32.1.RecordevidencedoesnotsupportApplicantsarguments. #  2      ׀Hiscreditreports, p includingonethatreflectsajudgmentwasenteredagainsthimforthecreditcarddebt,provide \ substantialevidencefortheJudgesfindingsthatApplicantwasresponsibleforthesedebts.See, H e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1203420at3(App.Bd.Jul.25,2014).ApplicantalsoassertsthattheJudge 4  insistedIaccepthisadvice,dropmydispute[involvingthecreditcarddebt],andacceptthedebt  p toshowIwasresponsibleandstatedtheJudgesadvicewasdesignedtodenyhimasecurity  \ clearance.AppealBriefat12.OurreadingofthetranscriptisnotinagreementwithApplicants H assertions.Tr.at7172.WefindnoharmfulerrorintheJudgesactualcommentsaboutcourses 4 ofactionApplicantcouldtaketodemonstrateresolutionofthecreditcarddebt._ #  3      _   8        Inmakinghisappealbriefarguments,Applicantnotesthatthe_Judge_Ԁconsidereddebtsthat  werenotallegedinthe_SOR_.AJudgemayconsidernonallegeddebts(a)inassessinganapplicants  credibility;(b)inevaluatinganapplicantsevidenceofextenuation,mitigation,orchanged  circumstances;_(c)_Ԁinconsideringwhethertheapplicanthasdemonstratedsuccessfulrehabilitation; l and(d)inapplyingthewholepersonconcept.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.0320327at4(App.Bd. X  Oct.26,2006).OurreviewofthedecisionrevealsthattheJudgeonlydiscussedtheallegeddebts D! inevaluatingApplicantsevidenceinmitigationandchangeofcircumstances.Wefindnobasisfor 0"  concludingthattheJudgeconsiderednonallegeddebtsinaninappropriatemanner. #l!  $X"   ApplicantalsoarguesthattheJudgedidnotconsiderhisperiodsofunemploymentanddid  notaccuratelydescribetheevidencepertainingtohisalleged_SCA_Ԁfalsification.WenotetheJudge  madefindingsoffactregardingApplicantsperiodsofunemployment.Applicantsargumentabout  theadversefalsificationfindingrelatebacktohisclaimthatthedebtswerenothisresponsibility, t which,asdiscussedabove,isnotsupportedbytherecordevidence.Hisargumentsareneither ` sufficienttorebutthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftherecordevidencenorenough L  toshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontraryto 8  law.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1600844at2(App.Bd.Jul.25,2017). $ t    `    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantdataandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  L  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay  8  begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Departmentof $  theNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).Seealso,Directive,Encl.2,AppA_ _Ԁ2(b): Anydoubt   concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavorof   nationalsecurity.    @-(, Ї@( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ <     `     h   Michael_Raanan_ ( x    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  d    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  P     `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields      `     h   WilliamS.Fields      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___