KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge noted that the record is sparse and concluded that Applicant had not met her
burden of persuasion.  On appeal Applicant challenges two findings of fact which if incorrect are
harmless errors.  Applicant submits new evidence which the Board cannot consider.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 0713685.a1
DATE: 10/10/2008
DATE: October 10, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-13685
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 April 3, 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 July 24, 2008, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 adverse security clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 41-year-old employee
of a defense contractor.  She has never held a security clearance.  Applicant has a number of
delinquent bills, including those for medical treatment resulting from an automobile accident.  She
has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.  The total value of debts alleged in the SOR amounts
to $16,835, although four of the debts are duplicates of others.  In evaluating Applicant’s case, the
Judge noted that the “record in this case is very sparse.  It reveals little about Applicant’s background
and reputation, the circumstances leading to her financial difficulties, and her responses to those
difficulties.”  Decision at 7.  The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of
persuasion.  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). (“The general standard is
that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national
security.’”)
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.”)  Applicant
contends that the Judge erred in stating that she is a switchboard operator instead of a security
control monitor, and that the 16-year-old son referenced in the Judge’s decision is not her son but
her stepson.  To the extent that this information is incorrect, the errors are harmless.  In support of
her appeal, Applicant submitted new evidence not contained in the record, which the Board cannot
consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal
Board.”)  In light of the record as a whole, 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 is sustainable on this record.  
3
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