KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F; Guideline J
DIGEST: In view of Applicant’s failure to follow through with earlier promises to pay off certain
debts and his falsification of material facts about his financial difficulties, Judge’s conclusion
that Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-02269.a1
DATE: 05/08/2009
DATE: May 8, 2009 
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-02269
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 June 10, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the
written record.  On January 27, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph
Testan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive
¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s analysis of the pertinent
mitigating conditions was erroneous.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, for student loans, automobile
loans, consumer purchases, etc.  In addition, Applicant was convicted of Obtaining Cash or
Merchandise by Bogus Check.  The court sentenced him to be fined and to pay restitution.  When
completing his SCA, Applicant failed to list this conviction as required.  Additionally, he answered
“no” to questions about financial delinquencies in excess of 180 days and 90 days respectively.
These answers were untrue.  
Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the record, including copies of
cashier’s checks made out to his creditors and recent copies of his credit reports.  The Board cannot
consider this new evidence.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or
considered by the Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009).
The Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory
explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the
choice made.’”  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
Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 8.  See also
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’”).    
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: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board