KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant had numerous delinquent debts.  In addition, she provided inconsistent
explanations for her false answers on the security clearance application.  Adverse decision
affirmed.  
CASENO: 07-06852.a1
DATE: 10/01/2008
DATE: October 1, 2008
In Re:
------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-06852
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On October 28,  2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct)  of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On June 11, 2008, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of fact
were supported by substantial record evidence.  We also construe Applicant’s appeal as asserting that
the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, which included two
judgements rendered against her in favor of creditors.  The total amount of the debts is nearly
$8,000.00.  In July 2006, while filling out her security clearance application (SCA), Applicant
provided false information in response to three questions.  These questions asked about debts
delinquent over 180 days, debts delinquent over 90 days, and unpaid judgements.  She answered
“no” to each of these questions, which was false as to each.  She stated to a government investigator
that she did so because of concern over “repercussions from her job supervisor and/or security
officer.”  Decision at 2.  In her response to the SOR, she gave a different explanation for the false
answers, that she had hurried through the SCA, because she believed the government was already
aware of her debts, and because she thought she had mentioned the debts on the SCA.  The Judge
stated in a footnote that her SCA contained no reference to her debts.  He also found that in 1999,
in completing a prior SCA, Applicant had denied having financial problems when, in fact, she had
numerous delinquent debts, including unpaid judgments.  
We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole.  The Judge’s
material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence.  See  Directive
¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”)  In support
of her appeal, Applicant submitted new evidence not contained in the record, which the Board cannot
consider.  “No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”  Directive  ¶
E3.1.29.  Furthermore, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his
ultimate adverse security clearance decision.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun.
2, 2006).  See also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant
[A]pplicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 6.  See
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).     
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael D. Hipple         
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed; James E. Moody          
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board