ÿWPC±  ºDuïÍ F+Ñ­t aSÝäkfÕ’è¸)TBóòñÎõå•,@ŒBi‹Ã…ß’-Ϭ(Fÿ˜‹K,•ºsŸpêˆoÇá7¿Iù-ò}ŠmëiÅάšÈõ»kÜŸv˜TÁñæVÌ×ñÂÈáÑ-Žî À÷i#N¼uLºbžåIŠKBÉðDPu øilg¸àK Ë¢ÜàYUµ%jàñE¯MŒ‰ót_¯r©%Ä.R~ÎxºX¶_òçŠÑÅ;mà}ö‰ ¢yxH©~ÊI%¬USaP?6é¡2|®<Ëlø¨…\)˜’ñXqé Œ%sï+°Qh·âK4áîRœ‚jk^o=än3“1·áKRW'ÅtŽ›¡{ûÕ­M©Ë&ø΄|ñÖ(xÌ}4‰ë¡ÚuÌ£¼'÷ zÇo?ÙoM±Û-î°´qJÁà×PöÏò—ù¼¡–‘³Ð~€V©(2ä®Ú^–hú‡'"^'š«¾´tgXOÜùm¿:£´ƒÙN7Á†õMžUQC¾ëyàZëÄñÌ“$E>4åE ÏLŠ_–†òKG¼™Q}’ØÛÈ(<ÄL³~êl3Üln ÒaDWz ¸öBÉ>8ü®ýMCvhá–©i ©è”ÔnrƒÆÓ½T{W#ÉÂUN‹ %Ù 0:ß àZ ^ s w 4ƒ — ¦ m¨ N¿ NÁ àZà 0Š 0D§ § Eë §í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í í B” ˜HP LaserJet 400 color M451dn UPD PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEFwXJà|7JtFold3|xÿU‹ÿÿÿÿ8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x«$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒx«$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôôòXXÔ€€In€a€post„hearing€submission,€Applicant€changed€her€responses€from€ð ðunable€to€admit€or€denyðð€concerningÐ ° Ða€number€of€the€medical€debts€to€admissions.€€òòSeeóó,€Ô_ÔAEÔ_Ô€P€at€8„9.€€She€continued€to€deny€other€debts. dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKEYWORD:€€Ô_ÔGuidleineÔ_Ô€FÐ ° ÐÌDIGEST:€€Applicantððs€arguments€are€neither€sufficient€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€the€JudgeÐ ˆØ Ðconsidered€all€of€the€evidence€in€the€record€nor€are€they€enough€to€show€that€the€Judge€weighedÐ tÄ Ðthe€evidence€in€a€manner€that€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€€Ð `° ÐÌCASE€NO:€€15„03411.a1Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌDATE:€€02/24/2017Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDATE:€February€24,€2017Ð è 8  ÐÌÌÌÒ.؉ð7r°(#°(#.ÒßA€V) °°xdE°—gAßÐ ˜è  ÐÌIn€Re:Ð “ã  ÐÌà  à„„„„„„„„„„„„Ìà  à€Ð W§ ÐÌApplicant€for€Security€ClearanceÐ / ÐÌßA€V) °°xdE°gAßÐ W Ð)Ð ˜è  Ð)Ð „Ô  Ð)Ð pÀ Ð)Ð \¬ Ð)Ð H˜ Ð)Ð 4„ Ð)Ð  p Ð)Ð  \ ÐÐ øH ÐÓp°œXÓÌÌÌà p àÔ_ÔISCRÔ_Ô€Case€No.€15„03411Ð \¬" ÐÐ H˜# ÐÒ.؉ð7r°°.ÒÓ °\X›XpÓò òÓ  ÓAPPEAL€BOARD€DECISIONÐ Ð # ÐÌÌòòAPPEARANCESóóÐ ”ä& Ðó óÌÔ‡&äÓ%XXÔò òFOR€GOVERNMENTó óÐ l¼( ÐJames€B.€Norman,€Esq.,€Chief€Department€CounselÐ D ”) ÐÌò òFOR€APPLICANTó óÐ ô!D+ ÐRyan€C.€Ô_ÔNerneyÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ô#†XùX%&äÓ #ÔÐ Ì", ÐÌÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Department€of€Defense€(DoD)€declined€to€grant€Applicant€a€security€clearance.€€OnÐ |%Ì / ÐDecember€13,€2015,€DoD€issued€a€statement€of€reasons€(Ô_ÔSORÔ_Ô)€advising€Applicant€of€the€basis€forÐ h&¸!0 Ðthat€decisionð!ðsecurity€concerns€raised€under€Guideline€F€(Financial€Considerations)€of€DepartmentÐ T'¤"1 Ðof€Defense€Directive€5220.6€(Jan.€2,€1992,€as€amended)€(Directive).€€Applicant€requested€a€hearing.€Ð @(#2 ÐOn€December€1,€2016,€after€the€hearing,€Defense€Office€of€Hearings€and€Appeals€(DOHA)Ð ,)|$3 ÐAdministrative€Judge€Mark€Harvey€denied€Applicantððs€request€for€a€security€clearance.€€ApplicantÐ *h%4 Ðappealed€pursuant€to€Directive€ðððð€E3.1.28€and€E3.1.30.Ð +T&5 ÐÌà  àApplicant€raised€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€whether€the€Judge€erred€in€his€findings€ofÐ Ü,,(7 Ðfact€and€whether€the€Judgeððs€adverse€decision€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€contrary€to€law.€Ð È-)8 ÐConsistent€with€the€following,€we€affirm.Ð ° ÐÌÌÔ_ÔÌà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Findings€of€Fact€ó ó€Ð `° Ðà  àÌà  àApplicant,€who€is€45€years€old,€provides€consulting€services€to€DoD,€and€her€annual€incomeÐ < Œ Ðis€about€$140,000.€€She€has€never€been€married€and€has€three€children.€€She€said€she€spent€aboutÐ ( x Ð$100,000€on€child€custody€and€support€litigation€over€about€six€years.€€She€pays€about€$20,000Ð  d Ðannually€for€her€13„year„old€childððs€boarding€school.€€She€has€a€rental€property€that€at€times€was€notÐ  P  Ðrented,€but€recently€obtained€a€tenant€resulting€in€a€significant€increase€in€her€income.€Ð ì <  ÐÌà  àThe€SOR€alleges€15€delinquent€debts€totaling€about€$17,000.€€In€her€response€to€the€SOR,Ð Ä  Ðshe€admitted€all€of€the€allegations.€€Applicant€paid€three€of€the€alleged€debts€(SOR€ðððð€1.a,€1.d,€andÐ °  Ð1.l).€€She€disputed€the€debt€in€SOR€ðð€1.o€and€provided€documentation€substantiating€the€dispute.€Ð œì  Ðà  àÌà  àSOR€ðððð€1.g,€1.i,€1.j,€1.k,€1.m,€and€1.n€are€medical€debts€.€€After€the€hearing,€Applicant€saidÐ tÄ Ðshe€would€pay€these€medical€debts,€but€only€provided€proof€of€payment€of€one€medical€debt€(òòi.e.óó,€theÐ `° Ðdebt€in€SOR€ðð€1.d,€discussed€above).€€Ð Lœ ÐÌà  àSOR€ðð€1.b€is€a€telecommunication€debt€for€which€she€could€not€recall€returning€theÐ $t Ðequipment€to€the€company.€€SOR€ðð€1.c€is€a€debt€to€a€law€firm€that€she€asked€to€stop€representing€her,Ð ` Ðbut€the€firm€continued€to€represent€and€bill€her.€€She€did€not€file€a€dispute€of€the€law€firmððs€debt€withÐ üL Ðthe€credit€reporting€companies.€€SOR€ðð€1.e€is€a€charged„off€credit€card€debt€in€which€the€monthlyÐ è8 Ðminimum€raised€from€$10€to€$25€soon€after€she€used€the€card,€and€she€has€refused€to€pay€theÐ Ô$ Ðbalance.€€SOR€ðð€1.f€is€a€collection€account€from€a€telecommunications€company€that€she€disputes,Ð À Ðbut€did€not€provide€any€documentation€showing€the€debt€was€resolved€or€disputed.Ð ¬ü ÐÌà  à€SOR€ðð€1.h€is€a€collection€account€for€$9,816€that€arose€from€a€contract€to€build€a€deck€nearÐ „Ô Ðher€house.€€Applicant€claims€the€contractor€dug€four€holes€in€the€wrong€place€near€her€homeððsÐ pÀ Ðfoundation€that€caused€water€issues,€including€the€sinking€of€a€preexisting€patio.€€She€said€the€costÐ \ ¬ Ðto€repair€the€damage€would€be€$20,000€to€$30,000.€€She€did€not€provide€a€copy€of€the€repairÐ H!˜ Ðestimate.€€She€offered€to€settle€the€debt€for€$2,500€and€the€creditor€made€a€counter„offer€for€$5,000.€Ð 4"„  ÐAfter€the€hearing,€she€provided€an€$2,500€estimate€for€the€repairs€that€did€not€discuss€what€steps€aÐ  #p! Ðreasonable€owner€could€have€taken€to€mitigate€the€damage.€€She€did€not€present€the€original€plansÐ  $\" Ðfor€the€deck.€Ð ø$H # ЀÌà  àò òThe€Judgeððs€Analysisó óÐ Ð& "% ÐÌà  àThe€Judge€found€for€Applicant€on€the€debts€she€resolved€(SOR€ðð€1.a,€1.d,€1.l€and€1.o)€andÐ ¨(ø#' Ðagainst€her€on€the€remaining€debts.€€Applicant€presented€important€mitigating€evidence,€such€asÐ ”)ä$( Ðinformation€about€her€child€custody€and€support€litigation€as€well€as€her€unemployment€andÐ €*Ð%) Ðunderemployment,€but€she€neither€provided€specifics€about€how€those€circumstances€over€the€pastÐ l+¼&* Ðfive€years€adversely€affected€her€finances€nor€established€that€she€acted€responsibly€under€theÐ X,¨'+ Ðcircumstances.€€She€may€be€relying€on€the€absence€of€delinquent€debt€from€her€current€credit€reportÐ D-”(, Ðto€mitigate€security€concerns,€which€is€not€meaningful€evidence€of€debt€resolution.€€While€sheÐ ° Ðmitigated€four€of€the€alleged€debts,€she€did€not€provide€sufficient€documentation€showing€paymentÐ œì Ðor€other€good„faith€attempts€to€resolve€the€other€debts.€€There€is€insufficient€assurance€that€herÐ ˆØ Ðfinancial€problems€are€being€resolved,€are€under€control,€and€will€not€recur€in€the€future.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àò òDiscussionó óÐ L œ Ðà  àÌà  àIn€the€appeal€brief,€Applicant€states€that€the€Judge€ð ðoften€misquotes€or€cites€facts€that€areÐ $ t Ðincorrect€or€backwards,€indicating€a€confused€decision€that€cannot€be€considered€common€sense.ðð€Ð  ` ÐA€footnote€at€the€end€of€that€sentence€refers€to€pages€4€and€8€of€the€decision.€€Appeal€Brief€at€5„6.€Ð ü L  ÐAn€appealing€party€must€state€with€sufficient€specificity€what€it€is€about€a€Judgeððs€decision€that€heÐ è 8  Ðor€she€believes€to€be€erroneous€so€as€to€enable€reviewing€authorities,€such€as€the€Appeal€Board,€toÐ Ô$  Ðaddress€the€assignment€of€error.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€14„05920€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Jan.€8,€2016).€Ð À  ÐApplicantððs€appeal€brief€is€deficient€in€that€regard€because€it€failed€to€specify€exactly€what€facts€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðmisquoted€or€incorrect.€€In€particular,€we€are€unable€to€discern€which€facts€on€pages€4€and€8€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðdecision€are€being€challenged.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWe€note€the€Judge€erred€in€finding€that€Applicant€admitted€all€of€the€allegations€in€her€SORÐ \¬ Ðresponse.€€She€either€denied€or€indicated€that€she€was€ð ðunable€to€admit€or€denyðð€most€of€the€€SORÐ H˜ Ðallegations.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€this€error€was€harmless€because€it€likely€had€no€affect€on€the€outcome€in€thisÐ 4„ Ðcase.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€12„03420€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Jul.€25,€2014).€€In€the€decision,€the€JudgeÐ  p Ðindividually€addressed€each€SOR€allegation.€€In€doing€so,€he€noted€when€Applicant€was€disputingÐ  \ Ða€particular€debt€and€her€reasons€for€the€dispute.€€Consequently,€the€Judge€was€aware€of€ApplicantððsÐ øH Ðposition€concerning€each€debt€during€his€analysis€of€the€evidence€pertaining€to€that€debt.Ð ä4 Ѐ€€€Ð Ð  Ðà  àIn€the€appeal€brief,€Applicant€also€states,€ð ðthere€are€a€number€of€references€to€ððPersonalÐ ¼  ÐConductðð€allegations€throughout€Judge€Harveyððs€decision€when€Personal€Conduct€allegations€wereÐ ¨ø Ðnever€alleged€by€the€government.ðð€€Appeal€Brief€at€2„3.€€Our€review€of€the€decision€reveals€oneÐ ”ä Ðreference€to€ð ðpersonal€conduct.ðð€€In€the€last€paragraph€of€his€whole„person€analysis,€the€Judge€stated,Ð €Ð Ðð ð€I€conclude€that€personal€conduct€security€concerns€are€mitigated;€however,€financial€considerationsÐ l¼ Ðsecurity€concerns€are€not€mitigated.ðð€€This€reference€to€ð ðpersonal€conductðð€is€an€error€because,€asÐ X ¨ ÐApplicant€correctly€noted,€there€were€no€personal€conduct€(Guideline€E)€allegations€in€the€SOR.€Ð D!” ÐHowever,€this€error€was€harmless€because€its€own€wording€shows€it€likely€had€no€impact€on€theÐ 0"€  Ðdecision€in€this€case.€€òòId.óó€€Ð #l! Ѐ€€à  àà ` àÐ $X" Ðà  àApplicant€further€argues€that€the€Judge€did€not€weigh€and€consider€all€relevant€evidence.€€SheÐ ô$D # Ðcites€to€such€things€as€the€financial€burden€of€her€past€custody€disputes€and€her€efforts€to€resolve€herÐ à%0!$ Ðdebts.€€However,€the€Judge€made€findings€about€those€matters.€€She€also€claims€that€the€Judge€didÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€discuss€many€of€the€SOR€allegations€(Appeal€Brief€at€12).€€Applicantððs€arguments€are€neitherÐ ¸'#& Ðsufficient€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€the€Judge€considered€all€of€the€evidence€in€the€record€nor€areÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthey€enough€to€show€that€the€Judge€weighed€the€evidence€in€a€manner€that€was€arbitrary,€capricious,Ð )à$( Ðor€contrary€to€law.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ISCR€Case€No.€14„03747€at€3€(App.€Bd.€Nov.€13,€2015).€€We€give€dueÐ |*Ì%) Ðconsideration€to€the€Hearing€Office€case€that€Applicant€has€cited,€but€it€is€neither€binding€precedentÐ ° Ðon€the€Appeal€Board€nor€sufficient€to€undermine€the€Judgeððs€decision.€€òòId.óó€€Additionally,€the€JudgeÐ œì Ðcomplied€with€the€requirements€of€òòóóthe€Directive€in€his€whole„persons€analysis€by€considering€theÐ ˆØ Ðtotality€of€the€evidence€in€reaching€his€decision.€Ð tÄ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Judge€examined€the€relevant€evidence€and€articulated€a€satisfactory€explanation€for€theÐ L œ Ðdecision.€€The€decision€is€sustainable€on€this€record.€€ð ðThe€general€standard€is€that€a€clearance€mayÐ 8 ˆ Ðbe€granted€only€when€ððclearly€consistent€with€the€interests€of€the€national€security.ðððð€€òòDepartmentÐ $ t Ðof€the€Navy€v.€Eganóó,€484€U.S.€518,€528€(1988).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Directive,€Enclosure€2€ðð€2(b):€€ð ðAny€doubtÐ  ` Ðconcerning€personnel€being€considered€for€access€to€classified€information€will€be€resolved€in€favorÐ ü L  Ðof€the€national€security.ððÐ è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà@ââ(ìàò òOrderó óˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€Decision€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€€Michael€Y.€Raððanan€€€€óóÐ Lœ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMichael€Y.€RaððananÐ 8ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ $t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àChairperson,€Appeal€BoardÐ ` ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€€James€E.€Moody€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ À Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€E.€MoodyÐ ¬ü Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ ˜è Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ „Ô ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòSigned:€€€James€F.€Duffy€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ 4"„  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJames€F.€DuffyÐ  #p! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAdministrative€JudgeÐ  $\" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMember,€Appeal€BoardÐ ø$H # ÐÌ