KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from her delinquent debts.  She
submitted new evidence on appeal, which the Board cannot consider.  The impact an adverse
decision will have on her employment is not a relevant consideration.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07528.a1
DATE: 12/29/2009
DATE: December 29, 2009
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07528
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 March 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 September 18, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact are supported by substantial record evidence and 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 is a senior technical writer for a defense contractor.  She
holds an advanced degree from a well-known U.S. university.  She has been married three times,
each ending in divorce.  Applicant experienced periods of unemployment prior to her present job.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, arising from consumer purchases, credit cards, etc.
Some of the debts had been reduced to judgements in favor of the creditors.  Most of the debts had
been delinquent for many years.  Applicant experienced a financial downturn in 2000, due to the
decline in the information technology industry.  She has enlisted the services of two attorneys to
assist her in resolving her financial problems.  “She claimed she had been working with a financial
counselor to pay her delinquent debts.  It is not clear whether she is talking about her attorneys or
another financial counselor.”  Decision at 4.  The Judge acknowledged that Applicant’s financial
problems were affected by her prior unemployment.  However, he concluded that she had failed to
meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  He noted a paucity of record evidence in
corroboration of her claims to have paid off certain debts.  He also noted an apparent inconsistency
in Applicant’s explanations for the circumstances underlying one of the debts in the SOR, which is
pertinent in an evaluation of her credibility.  “The sparse record evidence fails to convince me of
Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance.”  Id. at 9.  
Applicant contends that certain of the Judge’s findings are not supported by substantial
record evidence.  For example, she stated that she had only been divorced twice, her first marriage
having ended with an annulment.  She also denied having stated that she had a financial counselor
other than her two attorneys.  To the extent that the challenged findings are error, they are harmless,
in that they are not likely to have affected the outcome of the decision.  See ISCR 01-23362 (App.
Bd. Jun. 5, 2006); ISCR Case No. 03-09915 (App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2004); ISCR Case No. 01-11192
(App. Bd. Aug. 26, 2002), for discussion of harmless error.  Applicant’s brief has not identified any
harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case.  Considering the record evidence as a whole,
the Judge’s material findings of security concern are sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21025
at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007).  
Though acknowledging that the Board cannot consider new evidence, she states that she
would be able to produce such evidence if permitted.  The Directive does not permit the Board to
grant this requested relief.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or
considered by the Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-06875 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009);
ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009); ADP Case No. 08-03721 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct.
28, 2009).  Applicant states that a loss of her security clearance will have an adverse impact on her
employment.  However, the effect that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not a
relevant or material consideration in evaluating his or her security eligibility.  See ISCR Case No.
03-21012 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 31, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-19002 at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2005). 
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 the national
interest to grant or continue eligibility for a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this
record.  Decision at 9.  “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly
consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 528 (1988). 
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