KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant asserts the Judge relied on outdated files.  The Judge cited credit reports
from 2009 and 2008. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-05530.a1
DATE: 10/16/2009
DATE: October 16, 2009
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-05530
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 December 5, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
2
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 August 19, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Board construes Applicant’s appeal as contending that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts.  He noted that Applicant did
not reply to the file of relevant material or otherwise provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the
security concerns in his case.  Applicant asserts that the file upon which the Judge relied had not
been updated in two years.  In fact, the Judge cited credit reports from 2009 and 2008, as well as
older documents.  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 a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.
Decision at 6.  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
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Willaim S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
3
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board