KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider the new evidence submitted on appeal.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 09-06180.a1
DATE: 12/21/2010
DATE: December 21, 2010
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06180
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 April 18, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
2
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On October 1, 2010, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 found that Applicant had delinquent debts arising from two student loans.  These
debts total nearly $25,000.  Additionally, Applicant had a delinquent debt of $134 for medical
services.  Applicant failed to submit a reply to the file of relevant material.  In the Analysis portion
of the decision, the Judge noted the paucity of record evidence regarding the circumstances under
which Applicant’s debts became delinquent, efforts he had made to address the debts, and other
possible mitigating circumstances, such as receipt of financial counseling.  
In his brief, Applicant submits new evidence, concerning his medical debt and the reason his
efforts to pay down the student loans were dilatory.  We cannot consider this new evidence. See
Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”).  See
also, e.g.,  ISCR Case No. 08-05379 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2010).  
The record supports a conclusion 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). 
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
3
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board