KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant submitted new evidence on appeal, which the Board cannot consider. 
Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 08-04599.a1
DATE: 06/15/2009
DATE: June 15, 2009
In Re:
-----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-04599
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 November 6, 2008, 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 hearing. The Guideline E allegations were withdrawn
at the hearing.  On April 7, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Charles D. Ablard denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2001.  The
petition was dismissed in 2003.  The reason for the bankruptcy filing was Applicant’s having fallen
behind in his mortgage payments.  His in-laws subsequently purchased the house and assumed the
payments.  Applicant has numerous other delinquent debts for such things as consumer purchases,
loans, etc.  Applicant states that his financial problems arose due to his “irresponsibility.”  Decision
at 3.  Applicant’s annual salary is $52,000 and his wife’s is $32,000.  The Judge concluded that, as
Applicant has been employed for over four years without resolving most of his debts, “he has failed
to act responsibly” in regard to them.  Id. at 5.  
In support of his appeal Applicant has submitted new matters 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”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009).
Applicant contends that certain government exhibits assert facts that are not true.  Even if Applicant
is correct, he has provided no basis to conclude that the Judge’s findings of fact are erroneous or that
he mis-weighed the evidence.  (See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1, explaining the meaning of substantial
record evidence; and  ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007) for discussion of the
standard of review pertinent to a Judge’s weighing of the evidence.)
After reviewing the record, 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 7.  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: Jean E. Smallin              
Jean E. Smallin
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