KEYWORD: Guideline b; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contention that he did not receive pertinent record evidence is not supported
by the record.  Applicant has a Ph.D., signed for receipt of the File of Relevant Material, and was
provided a list of the included documents.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-03743.a1
DATE: 06/24/2011
DATE: June 24, 2011
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-03743
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 October 28, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
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 April 12, 2011,
after considering the record, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 Applicant was denied due process
and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge.  The Judge’s
favorable findings under Guideline B are not at issue in this appeal.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is seeking a security
clearance in connection with his employment by a Defense contractor.  He served in the U.S. Army
from 1997 to 2002.  He holds a Ph.D.
The SOR lists four delinquent debts.  Two, in the amounts of $16,899 and $55,948, are for
mortgages.  The remaining debts, for $129,000 and $71, 898, are for accounts that were charged off
or placed in collection, respectively.  
At one point in the past, Applicant owned seven investment rental properties.  Eventually,
they all went into foreclosure due to his inability to make payments.  Applicant’s reply to the SOR
asserts that the homes had been sold as a result of the foreclosures and that the debts had been
extinguished.  
In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge stated that Applicant had provided no
evidence to corroborate the statements in his SOR reply that the debts had been resolved.
Accordingly, he concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to
mitigation.
Applicant contends that he was denied due process.  Specifically, he claims that he did not
receive one of the credit reports, dated September 2010.  He states that, had he received this report,
he would have presented additional evidence to demonstrate debt resolution.  However, the File of
Relevant Material (FORM) includes a list of documents produced by the Government to substantiate
the allegations in the SOR.  Item 8 is styled “Credit Bureau Report, dated September 20, 2010 (5
pages).”  The record demonstrates that Applicant received a copy of the FORM and signed for it on
December 15, 2010.  The FORM advised Applicant of his right to submit a response.  Additionally,
the letter which accompanied the FORM advised Applicant of his opportunity to examine the
complete file and to submit additional matters or make objections, as appropriate.  Applicant
submitted no response to the FORM.  Decision at 1.  
In this case, the FORM placed Applicant on notice that the Government was relying, in part,
on the credit report in question.  Although born in another country, Applicant is apparently fluent
3
in English and holds a Ph.D.  There is no reason to believe that he was unable to understand the
FORM or to compose a response.  Under the circumstances, a reasonable person who had not
received all of the Government’s evidence would be expected to have lodged an objection as to the
completeness of  the FORM.  Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers,
they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  ISCR
Case No. 09-01074 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 16, 2009).  The record does not support a conclusion that
Applicant was denied the due process afforded by the Directive. 
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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.”
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