KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has various delinquent debts, has made no recent payments and has not
established a plan for doing so.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-09511.a1
DATE: 03/03/2010
DATE: March 3, 2010
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-09511
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 15, 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 December 28, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 whole-person analysis
was erroneous and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor.  He served in the
U.S. Marine Corps from 1998 to 2003.  He had numerous delinquent debts for such things as cable
services, telephone services, repossessed automobiles, and a military relief service.  His debts totaled
over  $26,000.  As of the close of the record, Applicant had made no recent payments on these debts,
nor had he established a plan for doing so.  In resolving the decision adverse to Applicant, the Judge
concluded, inter alia, that Applicant’s ongoing debts were recent and that he had not demonstrated
permanent changes in behavior favorable to debt resolution.
We have considered Applicant’s assignments of error in light of the entire record.  We
conclude that the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶
E2.2.1, in that the Judge considered the totality of Applicant’s conduct in reaching his decision.  See
ISCR Case No. 05-03948 at 3-4 (App. Bd. May 21, 2007); ISCR Case No. 04-09959 at 6 (App. Bd.
May 19, 2006).  Applicant’s appeal brief contains information concerning Applicant’s current job
responsibilities, the reasons for his discharge from the Marine Corps, and his family circumstances.
To the extent that this information provides details not contained in the record, we cannot consider
it.  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) and ISCR Case No. 08-
06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009).  
After reviewing the record, we conclude 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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “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).
3
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.   
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board