WPC  l9aՌ4p,CwE^Mŭ84RcJ ˁ.bp$hH]E~T%b!لsY̊x]mmrK6uN! a.M7W U~EyYGG.2)*bc0#/X!e(mB5%pKP~)"9|׎DLʢM֋ɪwA{|k`k&PqpnWh*n^Sn3c V /xr%lSj'L:4Y'? ">%tR-}W+as.XM6;|Yh8+bf9s`ȗ COfr/d\۾0;n~}]}ISg oȞ#W#UN % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m N Z 0 0D E B Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEnjJ;EJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0   d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:ApplicantsargumentsareneithersufficienttorebutthepresumptionthattheJudge  consideredalloftheevidenceintherecordnorenoughtoshowthatthejudgeweighedthe t evidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Adversedecision ` affirmed. L  _CASENO_:1210545.a1 $ t DATE:06/09/2017  L  ______________________   `     h      p DATE:June9,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEogA p InRe: k      `   / ApplicantforSecurityClearance W AV) xdEgA / ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4    ! pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1210545 4$   p% .؉7r. \XXp   APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES X )  &G%XX FORGOVERNMENT  0"+ JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel #X,  FORAPPLICANT  $ . Roxana_Aftahi_,Esq.#XlX%&G# % /     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnApril @(#2 30,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat ,)|$3 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof *h%4 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. +T&5 OnMarch21,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) +@'6 AdministrativeJudgeJuanJ.RiveradeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicant ,,(7 appealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. -)8 Ї  Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.     ` _  TheJudgesFindingsofFact  L      Applicantisa36yearoldemployeeofaFederalcontractor.Hissecurityinvestigation ( x revealedsevenSORdebtstotalingover$67,000.HetestifiedthatmostoftheSORdebtsoriginated  d fromatwoyearperiodofunderemploymentinthemid2000sbutalsoclaimedhisfinancial  P  problemswereduetoprovidingfinancialassistancetohisthengirlfriendwithwhomhewould  <  gambleatleasttwiceayear.Between2000and2015,healsoprovidedsubstantialfinancialsupport (  tohismother.     Applicantadmittedthathereceivedunemploymentbenefitswhileworkingfulltime.The   stateinitiatedlegalactionagainsthimtorecovertheoverpaymentofunemploymentbenefits.He   testifiedthathehasbeenmakingphonecallstofileacomplaintaboutalienfiledagainsthim,but t submittednowrittendispute. ` Ѐ  Applicantadmittedtwojudgmentswerefordelinquentstudentloanstotalingabout$41,000. 8 Hesubmittedevidenceshowingpaymentstowardthestudentloansin2008and2009,butprovided $t nodocumentaryevidenceofpaymentssincethen.Heiscurrentlydisputingthestudentloansand ` believesthatthestatuteoflimitationsfortheircollectionhaspassed.   L   Applicantsubmitteddocumentsreflectingpurportedpaymentsona$15,000debt.The $ documents,however,failtoshowthatdebtwaspaidoraconnectionbetweenthecompanyreceiving  thepaymentsandtheallegedcreditor.Moreover,thepaymentswereforthanlessthanthealleged  amountandnoevidencewaspresentedofasettlement.    Applicanthasreceivedfinancialcounseling.Heprovidedevidenceofeffortstoresolveother p debtsanddocumentsshowingheisagoodemployee. \     `   H!   TheJudgesAnalysis  4"    TheJudgefoundinfavorofApplicantonthreedebtsthathepaid.Applicantalsopaidother  $\" debtsnotallegedintheSORandseemstobeincontrolofhiscurrentfinances.Nevertheless,he $H # receivedunemploymentbenefitswhilebeingfullyemployedandhasrefusedtopaybackthemoney. %4!$ Hepaidsomemoneyonhisstudentloans,butthenwaitedforthepassingofthestatuteoflimitations & "% todisputethem.Hedidnotestablishapplicabilityofthestatuteoflimitationstohisstudentloans. ' #& Heclaimshepaidanotherdebt,butfailedtoprovidesubstantiatingevidence.Consideringthe (#' evidenceasawhole,includinghisdemeanorwhiletestifying,hispastfinancialproblemscontinue )$( tocastdoubtonhiscurrentreliability,trustworthiness,andgoodjudgment. *%)   Discussion  X,'+  D-(,   ApplicantessentiallyarguesthattheJudgedidnotconsideralltherelevantevidenceandmis  weighedtheevidenceinapplyingthemitigatingconditionsandwholepersonconcept.Hecitesto,  amongothermatters,hisperiodsofunderemployment,thefinancialsupportheprovidedtohis  girlfriendandmother,andhisgoodcharacterevidence.However,theJudgemadefindings_about t thosematters.ApplicantsargumentsareneithersufficienttorebutthepresumptionthattheJudge ` consideredalloftheevidenceintherecordnorenoughtoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidence L  inamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1507277 8  at3(App.Bd.Apr.26,2017).WegivedueconsiderationtotheHearingOfficecasethatApplicant $ t cited,butitisneitherbindingprecedentontheAppealBoardnorsufficienttounderminetheJudges  ` decision.Id.Additionally,theJudgecompliedwiththerequirementsoftheDirectiveinhiswhole  L  personsanalysisbyconsideringthetotalityoftheevidenceinreachinghisdecision.  8      TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe   decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay   begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department   oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt   concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor p ofthenationalsecurity. \    `     h @( Order  4   TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .  \    `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields     `     h   WilliamS.Fields     `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,AppealBoard     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody 4"     `     h   JamesE.Moody  #p!    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  $\"    `     h   Member,AppealBoard $H #    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__________________________________________________________________________ (#'    `     h   JamesF.Duffy )$(    `     h   AdministrativeJudge *%)    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___