KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from her significant delinquent
debt.  The Board has no authority to grant Applicant’s request for an interim clearance to be
followed by a review of her credit in one year.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 09-02045.a1
DATE: 11/02/2009
DATE: November 2, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-02045
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 May 12, 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
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 Rita C. O’Brien 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 adverse security
clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 27-year-old high
school graduate.  She has a three-year-old son.  She and her husband have separated, and he has
provided little by way of child support.  Applicant has numerous delinquent debts.  Those debts
which the Judge found against Applicant total over $26,000.  The debts are for such things as
medical expenses, utility payments, charge accounts, telecommunication services, etc.  In concluding
that Applicant had failed to meet her burdens of persuasion, the Judge cited a paucity of record
evidence that the debts were being resolved and stated that she has “no real plan in place” to resolve
them.  Decision at 7.  
In her appeal, Applicant submits what appears to be new evidence not contained in the record
concerning a repayment plan for one of her creditors.  The Board cannot consider 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).  Applicant requests an interim security
clearance be issued and her credit be reviewed after one year.  The Appeal Board does not have the
authority to grant the relief requested.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-05372 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 26,
2008).  
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 considered evidence favorable to Applicant, such as her
marital separation and her evidence of good character.  However, the Judge plausibly explained why
Applicant’s evidence was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by her history of
delinquent debt.
The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to allow
Applicant access to classified information” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 9.  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              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board