WPC" c +Ɂ[Z?üˑs{!#$qG Y2ebc[B9,R@MȏXYjk' "M3 + i2ڰZT"#3*$LejEWQQb6zNsk7S4 qQ̼>By ^`48B86ƅq}{dT!j0J/; ];D %膒_.`,UХVR2Ԫ$ jҜs6l^% .N[Ht R"CC hکo 9&? V[ywa/5YތX/1qqG~b!cuQ+^Ą;MU LLGu-kҝAdu7Rj9|pfM"6W#UN % 0: ^  w% 4) = L mN Ze N Z E 0 0D  1 0U 02 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0/ 0 0 0T 0 0 0I 0 0y 0 0 0K 0 0 0a 0 0 0) 09  B"Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,wJ;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0    x$USUS.,      1    _dXXԀThe_SOR_ԀalsoallegedthatApplicantreceivedaChapter7bankruptcydischargein1999,whichwaswithdrawn  inDepartmentCounselsFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM)_and_Ԁwasnotraisedasanissueonappeal. ' x$USUS.,      2    _dXXԀTheadjudicativeguidelinesarenot characteristics,butcriteriausedtoidentifyandassessvarioussecurity  concerns.*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L   x$USUS.,      3    _dXXԀAppealBriefat4.  x$USUS.,      4    _dXXԀApplicantprovidedfewdetailsaboutherandherhusbandsunemployment,theirseparation,andtheimpact  thoseconditionhadonherfinances.HersecurityclearanceapplicationliststhatshehadfulltimeemploymentfromJuly t 2004untiltheapplicationssubmissioninSeptember2013. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:ThesecurityconcernsunderGuidelineFarebroaderthanthepossibilitythatan  applicantmightknowinglycompromiseclassifiedinformationinordertoraisemoneytosatisfy t hisorherdebts.Financialproblemsmayalsoraiseconcernsaboutanapplicantsselfcontrol, ` judgment,andotherqualitiesessentialtoprotectingclassifiedinformation.Adversedecision L  affirmed. 8  _CASENO_:1505049.a1  ` DATE:07/12/2017  8  ________________________   `     h      p DATE:July12,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEogA p InRe: k      / ApplicantforSecurityClearance W AV) xdEgA / ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4    ! pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1505049 4$   p% .؉7r. \XXp %    APPEALBOARDDECISION & APPEARANCES X )  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  0"+ JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel #X,  FORAPPLICANT  $ . StephenD._Lofaso_,Esq.#XX%&M# % /     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On ,)|$3 December11,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor *h%4 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartment +T&5 ofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision +@'6 onthewrittenrecord.OnApril24,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearings ,,(7 andAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeRobertJ._Kilmartin_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestfora -)8 securityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgeimproperlyappliedthe  wholepersonconceptandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrary t tolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. `   TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis  8      Applicant,whois61yearsold,hasworkedforaFederalcontractorsince2013.Herfirst  d marriageendedindivorcein1997.Sheremarriedin1997andseparatedfromhersecondhusband  P  in2012.Shehasheldsecurityclearanceswithoutincidentsinceabout1980.  <    Applicantadmittedthe_SOR_ԀallegationthatshefiledChapter7bankruptcy,whichwas   dischargedin2003. #  1      ׀Shedenied11ofthe12allegeddebtsthattotaledover$219,000andincluded   aforeclosedfirstmortgageandchargedoffsecondmortgage.Shedisclosedinhersecurityclearance   applicationsomeofthedebtsthatshehasdenied.Sheattributedherfinancialproblemstoherand   herhusbandslossofemployment. t   Applicantclaimstohavecontactedhercreditorstomakepaymentarrangementsand L expressedanintenttopayalldebtsinthefuture.Sheprovidedproofofsatisfactionofastatelien, 8 butprovidednoevidenceofpaymentsormitigationregardingtheotherdebts.Herfinancial $t problemsarenotundercontrolandremainasecurityconcern. `   Discussion  8   ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgeimproperlyappliedthewholepersonconcept.Shenotes  theDirectivecontains13adjudicativeguidelines,whichshereferstoas characteristics, #  2      ׀andpoints  outthatsheonlyhadsecurityconcernsallegedunderoneguideline.Sheargues anadjudicator  shouldweightheseverityof[herallegedsecurity]concernsagainstthe12othercharacteristics  [guidelines]... todeterminewhetherthatonecharacteristicoutweighsallothersinthewhole p personanalysis.AppealBriefat34.Shefurtherstates: \  8  Thedecisionneverdiscusseshow[Applicants]allegedfinancialdebtsaresoserious 4"  thattheywarrantoverridingtheother12characteristicsofthewholepersonconcept  #p! forwhichthegovernmentfoundnoconcerns.Instead,thedecisionmerelyconcludes  $\" that[Applicants]allegedfinancialdebtmakesherahighernationalsecurityrisk $H # underthewholepersonconcept.Itdoesnotputforthanyanalysisonhowthe %4!$ financialconsiderationsaspectofthewholepersonanalysiswasweighedand & "% balancedagainst,e.g.,[Applicants]AllegiancetotheUnitedStatesorherPersonal ' #& Conduct,orherassessmentonAlcoholConsumption.Assuch,thedecisionis  arbitraryandcapriciousasitdoesnotdeveloporlayouttheanalysisundertakenin  makingthedecisionthat[Applicants]allegedfinancialfailingsshowsthatshe,as  awholeperson,takingintoconsiderationalltheotherprongsrequiredbythe t AdjudicativeGuidelines,wouldcauseaheightenednationalsecurityrisk./ #  3      ׀`     Applicantscontentionisunpersuasive.TheDirectivedoesnotrequirethatanysecurity 8  concernsarisingfromadmittedorproven_SOR_Ԁallegationsunderoneormoreoftheguidelinesbe $ t weighedorbalancedagainstnonallegedguidelinesinmakingawholepersonassessment.What  ` theDirectiverequiresinmakingawholepersonassessmentisthat [_a]ll_Ԁavailable,reliable  L  informationabouttheperson,pastorpresent,favorableandunfavorable,shouldbeconsideredin  8  reachinganationalsecurityeligibilitydetermination.Directive,Encl.2,App.A,2(a).Inthis $  regard,wefirstnotethatthereisa_rebuttable_ԀpresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredallofthe   evidenceintherecord(see,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1406093at3(App.Bd.Dec.4,2015)),and,second,   theJudgeisnotrequiredtodiscusseachandeverypieceofrecordevidence,whichwouldbea   practicalimpossibility(see,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1201500at3(App.Bd.Aug.25,2015)).Based   uponourreviewoftherecord,wefindnoerrorintheJudgeswholepersonassessmentinthiscase. p ̀  Throughoutherappealbrief,Applicantarguesthatsheshouldbegrantedasecurityclearance H becauseshedoesnotpose aheightenednationalsecurityrisk.Sheisrequestingthatweapplythe 4 wrongstandardfordeterminingsecurityclearanceeligibility.TheDirectivedoesnotrequirethe  p Governmentestablish aheightenednationalsecurityrisk. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearance  \ maybegrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity. H DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective2.3andDirective, 4 Encl.2,App.A,2(b)( Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurity   eligibilitywillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.)and2_(c)_Ԁ( Theultimatedetermination   ofwhetherthegrantingorcontinuingofnationalsecurityeligibilityisclearlyconsistentwith  nationalsecuritymustbeanoverallcommonsensejudgmentbaseduponcarefulconsiderationof  thefollowingguidelines,eachofwhichistobeevaluatedinthecontextofthewholeperson.).We  notetheJudgeappliedthecorrectstandardinthiscase.Decisionat6. l   ApplicantalsoarguesthattheJudgeerredinconsidering chargedoffdebtsbecauseshe D! cannotbepressuredorcoercedregardingdebtsshenolongerowes.Thisargumentlacksmerit. 0"  First,thesecurityconcernsunderGuidelineFarebroaderthanthepossibilitythatanapplicantmight #l! knowinglycompromiseclassifiedinformationinordertoraisemoneytosatisfyhisorherdebts. $X" Financialproblemsmayalsoraiseconcernsaboutanapplicantsselfcontrol,judgment,andother $D # qualitiesessentialtoprotectingclassifiedinformation.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1105365at3(App. %0!$ Bd.May1,2012)andDirective,Encl.2,_App._ԀA18.Second,theBoardhasrepeatedlyheldthe &"% non_collectability_Ԁofadebtdoesnotprecludeconsiderationofthedebtandcircumstances '#& surroundingitinasecurityclearanceadjudication.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.0908550at4(App. (#' Bd.Feb.25,2011). )$( Ѐ |*%)   ApplicantfurtherarguestheJudgeerredinhismitigationanalysisbecausehedidnot h+&* considerthe2008downturninthehousingmarketwhenanalyzingtheallegedmortgages.However,  therecordbelowcontainsnoevidenceorargumentsthatthe2008downturninthehousingmarket  wasaconditionbeyondhercontrolthatimpactedherfinances.Acreditreport(GovernmentExhibit  (GE)4)andcountyrealestateassessment(GE7)establishedtheallegedmortgagedebts.Oncethe t Governmentpresentedevidenceestablishingthedefaultedmortgages,Applicanthadtheburdenof ` presentingevidencetorebut,explain,extenuate,ormitigatesuchprovenfactsandalsohadthe L  ultimateburdenofpersuasionastoobtainingafavorableclearancedecision.DirectiveE3.1.15. 8  TherecordreflectsthatApplicantonlyattributedherfinancialproblemstoherandherhusbands $ t lossofemployment,whichtheJudgediscussed.SheneitherrequestedtheJudgetakeadministrative  ` noticeofthe2008economicdownturnnorprovidedanyevidenceaboutthatevent.AJudges  L  materialfindingsmustbebasedonsubstantialevidenceorconstitutereasonableinferencesor  8  conclusionsthatcouldbedrawnfromtheevidence.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1203420at3(App. $  Bd.Jul.25,2014).ApplicanthascitedtonoharmfulerrorintheJudgesmitigationanalysis.       ThebalanceofApplicantsargumentsamounttoadisagreementwiththeJudgesweighing   oftheevidence.Forexample,shecitestothefinancialturmoilshehasexperiencedbecauseofher   maritalseparationandtheamountoftimethathaspassedsinceherbankruptcydischarge.0 #  4      ׀The p presenceofsomemitigatingevidencedoesnotalonecompeltheJudgetomakeafavorablesecurity \ clearancedecision.Asthetrieroffact,theJudgehastoweightheevidenceasawholeanddecide H whetherthefavorableevidenceoutweighstheunfavorableevidence,orviceversa.Apartys 4 disagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidence,oranabilitytoargueforadifferent  p interpretationoftheevidence,isnotsufficienttodemonstratetheJudgeweighedtheevidenceor  \ reachedconclusionsinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCase H No.1503742at3(App.Bd.Jun.9,2017). 4   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe   decision.Thedecisionissustainableontherecord.  @( Order  )$( Ї  TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ d    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ P     `     h   AdministrativeJudge <     `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard ( x    `     h      p      `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields (     `     h   WilliamS.Fields      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ L    `     h   JamesF.Duffy 8    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $t    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___