WPCf <:lnxj|>r-xN]i@,mmnqC+k_4.^:B &Sb }5sb,nh'=zUD.U/^.*ZEz]PxRK읐+iSV(ypiQF@t}$KjE]!ˌԸSq$ `=r~ٔUj˱jo/c0FS..v *^|1[} ]!{T>xfCdH}ߦq}bSsnb[زB|Dhnm5ùDKE3]w*Iasu(Q_@=BC?$ }sml˭ ξ۵Ιo(S*䭓O5OcnU3vZխ? 8 UKH#$5{ :~HT yXV@*qAW#UN % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m 0 Eh Zj 0D N  } BIHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEK;EJ3|xU(Y(2$ !USUS.,  hXX      0  8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(#$  0    $USUS.,hXX      2    _ԀDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b). s  $USUS.,hXX      1    _ԀDirective,Encl.2,AppA20(a)states: thebehaviorhappenedsolongago,wassoinfrequent,oroccurred  undersuchcircumstancesthatitisunlikelytorecuranddoesnotcastdoubtontheindividualscurrentreliability, t trustworthiness,andgoodjudgment[.]WenotethattheadjudicativeguidelineswererevisedonJune8,2017,butthis 8 mitigatingconditionwasnotchangedinthatrevision. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:Itiswellestablished,however,thatasecurityclearanceadjudicationdoesnotturn  simplyonafindingthatoneormoreofthemitigatingconditionsapplytotheparticularfactsofa t case.Rather,anadjudicationrequirestheexerciseofsounddiscretioninlightoftherecord ` evidenceasawhole.Adversedecisionaffirmed. L  _CASENO_:1600396.a1 $ t DATE:08/15/2017  L     `     h      p DATE:August15,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEgA   InRe:      ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AV) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1600396 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #-  Prose #X X%&y# $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnJune R'"1 20,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat >(#2 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof *)z$3 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. *f%4 OnMay15,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) +R&5 AdministrativeJudgeThomasM._Crean_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance. +>'6 ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,*(7  -)8   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesdecisionwasarbitrary,  capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.    TheJudgesFindingsofFact  `   Applicantisa34yearoldemployeeofadefensecontractor.The_SOR_Ԁalleges,andcredit <  reportsconfirm,thatApplicanthas20delinquentdebtstotalingabout$26,000.Hiswifewas ( x attendingschoolandcollectingGIbilleducationbenefits.In2009,sheexperiencedmedical  d problemsafterthebirthoftheirfirstchildthatprecludedherfromworking,attendingschool,and  P  collectingeducationalbenefits.ThissituationcausedApplicanttousecreditcardstosustainhis  <  family.Atsomelaterpoint,hiswifewasabletoreturntowork,attendschool,andcollectGIbill (  benefits.Duetohermedicalconditionwhenshebecamepregnantagain,shewasunabletoengage   inthoseactivitiesandreceivethosebenefits,whichresultedinApplicantbeingunabletokeepup   withtheirlivingexpensesanddebtpayments.     In2008,Applicantcontractedwithacreditservicingcompanyandpaidthemover$500per t monthtoassistinpayinghisbills.Laterthatyear,hestartedpayingthedebtdirectlybecausehe ` wantedtoavoidpayinghighfees.ThedebtsremainingarelistedintheSOR.Applicantresolved L fiveoftheallegeddebts.Twooftheallegeddebtsareduplicates.Hehastakenstepstoaddress 8 otherdebts,buttheyremainunresolved.Hepresentedlettersfromformersupervisorsandassociates $t whonotedheistrustworthy,reliable,andhasthehighestintegrity. `   TheJudgesAnalysis  8     Applicantshistoryofdelinquentdebtsisdocumentedinhiscreditreportsandadmissions.  Hedidnotpresentanyevidencethathechangedhislifestyletolivewithinhismeanswhenhiswife  encounteredthemedicalproblems.Instead,heusedcreditcardstocontinuehislifestyle.Healso  accumulatedtrafficcamerafinesthatwerewithinhiscontroltoavoid.Hepresentedevidenceof  financialcounseling,butithasnobearingonthe_SOR_Ԁdebts.Hepaidsomeofthedebt,butmany p debtsremainunpaid.Insufficientevidencewaspresentedofameaningfultrackrecordofdebt \  payment.Heclaimshecontactedmostofthecreditorstoestablishpaymentplans,butpresentedno H! documentationofthoseplansorpaymentstothecreditors.Hisfinancialproblemsarenotbehind 4"  himorundercontrol.Hehasnotestablishedanadequateplantoresolvehisremainingdebts.  #p!   Discussion  $H #   ApplicantchallengestheJudgesapplicationofmitigatingcondition20(a). #  1      ׀Hearguesthat & "% theallegeddebtsarebetween6to8yearsold,thathehasnotincurredanynewdebtsinseveral ' #& years,andthattheallegeddebtdonotreflectnegativelyonhiscurrentreliability,trustworthiness, (#' andgoodjudgment.TheAppealBoard,however,hasheldthatunsatisfieddebtsareacontinuing  courseofconductforpurposesofmitigatingcondition20(a)andthattheongoingnatureof  delinquentdebtsisinconsistentwithaconclusionthosedebtsarenotrecent.See,e.g.,ISCRCase  No.0623369at4(App.Bd.Aug.1,2008). t   ApplicantalsoarguestheJudgeerredinhisapplicationofothermitigatingconditionsand L  inhiswholepersonanalysis.Henotes,forexample,thathereceivedfinancialcounseling,resolved 8  someofthedebts,andpresentedcharacterevidenceinsupportofhissecurityclearance.Itiswell $ t established,however,thatasecurityclearanceadjudicationdoesnotturnsimplyonafindingthat  ` oneormoreofthemitigatingconditionsapplytotheparticularfactsofacase.Rather,an  L  adjudicationrequirestheexerciseofsounddiscretioninlightoftherecordevidenceasawhole.  8  Thus,thepresenceofsomemitigatingevidencedoesnotalonecompeltheJudgetomakeafavorable $  securityclearancedetermination.Asthetrieroffact,theJudgehastoweightheevidenceasawhole   anddecidewhetherthefavorableevidenceoutweighstheunfavorableevidence,orviceversa.A   partysdisagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidence,oranabilitytoargueforadifferent   interpretationoftheevidence,isnotsufficienttodemonstratetheJudgeweighedtheevidenceor   reachedconclusionsinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,ISCRCase p No.1501652at2(App.Bd.Jul.7,2017). \   Applicantcontendsthatitisnotfairthat closeto80%of_SOR_Ԁdecisionsresultin 4 unfavorableclearancedecisions.Hedoesnotciteanysourcesforhisassertions.TheDirective  p requiresthat [e]achcasemustbejudgedonitsownmerits...and [a]nydoubtconcerning  \ personnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavorofthenational H security. #  2      ׀Applicanthasfailedtoestablishthathewastreatedunfairly,thathiscasewasnotjudged 4 onitsownmerits,orthatanyharmfulerroroccurredinhiscase.     TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantdataandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay  begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department  ofNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988). l    `  h+&* Ї@( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ <     `     h   MichaelRaanan ( 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___