KEYWORD: Guideline f
DIGEST: Applicant was twice advised of his right to submit additional evidence in response to
the FORM.  An applicant is expected to take reasonable steps to protect his or her interests
inDOHA proceedings.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-04090.a1
DATE: 11/12/2010
DATE: November 12, 2010
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-04090
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 July 21, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
2
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 the case be decided on the written record.  On August 10, 2010, after considering the
written record, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether Applicant should be afforded the
opportunity to submit evidence in response to the SOR allegations as a result of his
misunderstanding regarding his right to submit materials in response to the government’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM).  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
decision. 
The Judge found that the total delinquent debt listed on Applicant’s credit reports was over
$58,000.  The Judge also found that while Applicant only admitted to 3 of the 14 debts alleged in
the SOR, Applicant provided no information or details to explain his financial circumstances or how
he accumulated debt.  The Judge also found that Applicant provided no information to dispute the
legitimacy of the debts, to indicate that he has received financial counseling, or to show that he has
taken or intends to take any action to resolve or pay his delinquent debts.  The Judge concluded that,
although he considered the potentially applicable mitigating conditions, he could not apply them to
Applicant’s benefit in that Applicant had not provided any information about his finances that would
allow him to do so.  The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to establish that the reasons for his
debts were beyond his control and that he took reasonable and responsible efforts to manage his
finances.
The case file reflects the fact that Applicant returned the receipt accompanying the FORM
without signing it and without indicating the date on which it was received.  Applicant
acknowledges his receipt of the FORM and states that he reviewed “the documents and the
instructions,” but it was his understanding that I was only allowed to respond “I deny” or “I admit”
to the SOR enclosed with the FORM.  Applicant asserts that, in reviewing the instructions, it was
not apparent to him that he could provide additional information and/or evidence to explain the
financial concerns in the SOR.  Applicant states that had that been his understanding, he would have
provided the relevant supporting documentation along with his SOR responses.  Applicant included
four attachments with his brief that he now wishes to have considered.  
A review of the administrative file reveals that Applicant was sent a cover letter along with
the government’s FORM.  The letter was dated June 7, 2010.  That letter states, in pertinent part,
that Applicant had the opportunity to review the attached FORM and to submit any material he
wished a Judge to consider, or to make any objections he might have as to the information in the
FORM.  The letter also informed Applicant that if he did not file objections to the FORM or submit
any additional information within 30 days of the receipt of the letter, his case would be assigned to
a Judge for a determination based solely on the FORM.  The FORM itself has a section entitled
“VII.  Notice of Applicant’s Right to Respond.”  Section VII contains the same information as the
June 7, 2010 cover letter.    
3
After a review of the June 7, 2010 letter, the Board concludes that the plain language of the
letter and Section VII of the FORM put Applicant on reasonable notice of his right to submit
evidence for the Judge’s consideration independent of his answers to the SOR.  It is important to
note that Applicant had already provided his answers to the SOR allegations on August 19, 2009.
The Board also notes that although a considerable length of time passed between Applicant’s
answers to the SOR and the receipt of the FORM and cover letter, Applicant does not state that he
forgot that he had answered the SOR previously.  Even without the assistance of a lawyer, an
applicant is required to take reasonable steps to protect his or her interests in DOHA proceedings.
A review of the entire record discloses no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the rights due
him under the Directive or that he had not been adequately advised of those rights.  See ISCR Case
No. 08-03110 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 2009).  
Inasmuch as the Board concludes that there is no basis to reopen the record, the Board cannot
consider the materials submitted by Applicant as they constitute new evidence, Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Therefore, the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board