WPC  3C\X@8-2>Zo6NQK/][I+H6q ,]j&!=&ŬL9S4>¿`aʌn>M%r:ɽʓzs\Ş[K:[tjH0b'X6z# ];~KwSX *Vͤ"s~3 {J/軹1 9 - ڌ~j=0(`_7 UX*e'T^ >,FFuBm)cNpŌt\wh4癎$[n]Ϙ`$ j[cmT_r\C̶}(%q/}#s)~?*9WQ4\'ϖzʴQ xt>kI݃$_r4f66\$=?e8Ah2~K. n#RZ#UN % 0: ZC ^ w 4   m Z NC C EE U>G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G B Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEhJ;EJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE\  `&Times New Roman d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:ApplicanthasnotrebuttedthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredallofthe  evidenceintherecord.Adversedecisionaffirmed. t _CASENO_:1206259.a1 L  DATE:06/19/2017 $ t ________________________   `     h      p DATE:June19,2017  L  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:        k ApplicantforSecurityClearance C AY) xdEgA k )   )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p   \ pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1206259 p!  \" .؉7r. \XXp 4"    APPEALBOARDDECISION  # APPEARANCES &  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  l( JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel D )  FORAPPLICANT  !D+  Prose #XPX%&# ",     XPXXXPTheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On z% / December31,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor f&!0 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartment R'"1 ofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. >(#2 OnMarch31,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) *)z$3 AdministrativeJudgeArthurE.Marshall,Jr.,deniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance. *f%4 ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. +R&5   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgefailedproperlytoapply ,*(7 thewholepersonconcept.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. -)8 Ї_  TheJudgesFindingsofFact     Applicantsdebtproblemaroseduetohis(now)exwifehavingsufferedinjuryfroman t automobileaccident,which,alongwithhermothersillnessandsurgery,causedthewifetomiss ` work.Asaconsequence,thecouplehadtorelyonApplicantssalaryalone,whichwasnot L  sufficient,andtheyfellintodebt.Thecoupledivorcedin2013. 8    Applicanthasnumerousdelinquentdebts,forexample,educationloans,accountsowedto  ` abank,etc.Applicantenteredintoanagreementwithadebtresolutioncompanytoaddresssome  L  ofhisdebts.Heenteredintoaplan,withpaymentstobegininMarch2016.Applicantpresented  8  noevidenceofanypayments.Applicantseducationloansweremadethesubjectofapaymentplan $  aswell,andhemadepaymentsfromOctober2015throughJanuary2016.Applicantstatedthat   paymentscontinueduntilAugust2016,atwhichtimetheplanlapsed,andhisbackupplanistoget   asecondjob.     Inaddition,the_SOR_Ԁallegesadelinquentmortgage,whichishiswifesresponsibility p pursuanttothedivorcedecree.ItalsocitestoachargedoffaccountthatApplicantbelievedwas \ includedinthefirstpaymentplandescribedabove,althoughhepresentednocorroborationforthis H claim.Applicantscharacterreferencesdescribehimasreliableandtrustworthy. 4   TheJudgesAnalysis   \   TheJudgeresolvedthemortgagedebtinApplicantsfavor.Theremainder,however, 4 resultedinadversefindings.ThoughnotingcircumstancesoutsideApplicantscontrolthataffected   hisdebts,theJudgestatedthattheeducationloansappeartobe atastandoffandthatthereis   insufficientdocumentaryproofthattheotherdebtsarebeingaddressed.Directiveat6.TheJudge  statedthatApplicanthasnothadformaldebtcounselingandthathisfinancialreservesare scant.  Id.at7.InthewholepersonanalysistheJudgereiteratedhiscommentsaboutapaucityof  corroboratingevidenceandconcludedthatApplicanthadnotdemonstratedatrackrecordofdebt l resolution. X    Discussion  0"    SomeofApplicantscommentsonappealpertaintothemortgageloan,whichtheJudge $X" resolvedfavorablytohim.Healsocitestohiseffortsatdebtresolution,hishavinghiredafirmto $D # addresshisfinancialproblems,andtohisextensivedocumentaryresponsetothe_SOR_,which %0!$ includesdocumentsconcerningdebtdisputes,paymentsplans,etc.Applicanthasnotrebuttedthe &"% presumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidenceintherecord.#XPXXXP1#See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo. '#& 1300502at3(App.Bd.Mar.7,2017).ReadingtheDecisionasawhole,weconcludethatthe (#' JudgeevaluatedApplicantssecurityconcernsinlightoftheentiretyoftheevidence,whichiswhat )$( awholepersonanalysisrequires.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1406653at3(App.Bd.Nov.18,2016). |*%) Applicantstatesthathehastakensomefinancialclassesonline.ThisissupportedbyaCertificate h+&* ofCompletionattachedtoApplicantsresponsetothe_SOR_.Thisdocumentisnottotallyconsistent T,'+ withtheJudgescommentintheAnalysisportionoftheDecisionthatApplicanthadnothadformal @-(, counseling.However,totheextentthatthisisanerror,itdidnotlikelyaffecttheoveralldecision.  Therefore,itisharmless.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1500535at3(App.Bd.Mar.13,2017).    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe t decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay ` begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department L  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt 8  concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor $ t ofthenationalsecurity.  ` @( Order   8    TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .      `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ t    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard 8    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody 8    `     h   JamesE.Moody $    `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,AppealBoard     `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ \     `     h   JamesF.Duffy H!    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 4"     `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___