KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant cites to information she reports was provided to “The Investigator” and does
not understand why it was not considered by the Judge.  Applicant was provided a copy of the
record to be considered by the Judge and advised of her rights and the procedures to be followed. 
She did not object or submit additional information.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-13235.a1
DATE: 10/02/2008
DATE: October 2, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-13235
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On January 7, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On June 30, 2008, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact are supported by substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s unfavorable security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
Applicant is 33 years old and a senior contract administrator for a defense contractor.  She
also has been employed as a bartender since April 2005.  
The Judge found that Applicant has delinquent debts, one for a car and another for a “tire
account.”  Decision at 2.  Although the SOR contains three allegations, the Judge found that the first
two refer to the same car purchase.  Applicant made inconsistent statements concerning her debts
and provided no evidence to demonstrate an intent to pay them off.  The Judge concluded that
Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion, either under the pertinent mitigating conditions or
under the whole-person factors.  He stated that Applicant “mentioned financial hardships but did not
explain what those hardships were.  Even though she may have incurred no new debt in the last five
years, she still has the two past due accounts; one is more than four years old, and the other is more
than seven years old.  Failure to pay those two accounts, or resolve past mistakes, demonstrates
unwillingness to satisfy debts that has not been mitigated by any of the [Guideline F mitigating
conditions].”  Decision at 5-6.  
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.  Applicant cites to information she reports that she provided to “the Investigator” and does
not understand why it was not in the record.  A review of the record shows that Applicant was sent
a copy of the record to be considered by the Judge, along with a cover letter dated March 6, 2008,
which advised her that “If you do not file any objections to the attached material or submit any
additional information within 30 days of receipt of this letter, your case will be assigned to an
Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on the attached file of relevant material.”  The
record demonstrates that Applicant submitted no objections or additional information.  Her case was
processed accordingly.  
3
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 Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board