KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s arguments fail for lack of specificity.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-06067.a1
DATE: 10/22/2010
DATE: October 22, 2010
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06067
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 February 26, 2010, 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 hearing.  On August 10, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G.
Ricciardello 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 is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following
discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an administrative
assistant for a federal contractor.  Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling approximately
$33,000.  These debts are for medical treatment, personal loans, utilities, credit cards, etc.  The bulk
of these debts originated during 2007 and 2008, when Applicant was not employed.  Later in 2008,
while she was employed, Applicant was in a car accident, caused by her own fault.  She did not pay
the resulting medical bills.
She has moved in with her mother to save money, and she is looking for a second job.  She
has sought assistance from a financial counselor, although the budget that was prepared for her was
not completely accurate, in that it failed to take into account certain recurring expenses.  Her
monthly after-tax income is $2,200.
In deciding the case adversely to Applicant, the Judge noted her unemployment as a
circumstance beyond her control that affected her financial condition.  However, the Judge
concluded that Applicant had failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay her debts and that
there is no indication that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control.  Applicant
has stated that she intends to pay her debts off within a year, but the Judge expressed scepticism as
to the feasibility of that plan.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008), for
the proposition that promises to repay debt in the future are not a substitute for a track record of
financial responsibility. 
Applicant contends that the Judge did not have a full understanding of the case, as a
consequence of which the decision was in error.  Applicant requests that the case be remanded to
another Judge for a new decision, which would give Applicant an opportunity to present evidence
not available to her at the previous hearing.  Applicant’s contention fails for lack of specificity.  For
a discussion of the requirement for specificity, see ISCR Case No. 00-0429 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jul. 9,
2001).  In this case, the Board can not discern from the brief which evidence is alleged to have been
misunderstood, nor what the nature of the misunderstanding was.  Furthermore, there is nothing in
the transcript or elsewhere in the record to establish or imply that Applicant wanted to present
additional evidence. 
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
3
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). 
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