KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant states that she was not asked to provide corroborating evidence.  Although
pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take reasonable
steps to protect their rights.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-01074.a1
DATE: 10/16/2009
DATE: October 16, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-01074
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 April 10, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
2
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On August 31, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  We also construe Applicant’s appeal
as contending that she was denied due process.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found against Applicant on ten of twenty delinquent debts alleged in the SOR.
Of those debts he stated that Applicant had provided insufficient evidence corroborating her claims
that the debts resulted from unexpected illnesses in her family.  He also concluded that she did not
provide sufficient evidence concerning the nature of a debt consolidation plan.  Applicant contends
that she did not understand that she needed to provide corroborating evidence or other matters
referenced by the Judge.  She stated that she was never asked for such documents.  
“Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take
timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.”  ISCR Case No. 05-03143 at 2
(App. Bd. Dec 20, 2006).  In this case, Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written
record.  She was provided with a copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) and notified of her
opportunity to provide documentary evidence to rebut or explain the security concerns in her case.
Applicant provided documentary evidence (none of which substantiated the medical explanations
she had previously offered).  The Judge considered Applicant’s response to the FORM, along with
other record evidence.  There is no reason to believe that Applicant was denied due process.   
In light of the Judge’s findings about the extent of Applicant’s delinquent debt and the
paucity of record evidence in mitigation, his adverse decision is reasonable.  His decision that “it is
not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for 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: William S. Fields               
3
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board