KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not demonstrated that the evidence before the Judge was insufficiently
current or that the processing time prejudiced his ability to present a evidence in mitigation. 
Furthermore the Judge has no obligation to gather information for either party.  Rather it is the
responsibility of each party to present evidence to the Judge.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-10170.a1
DATE: 07/08/2011
DATE: July 8, 2011
In Re:
------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-10170
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 April 23, 2010, 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 April 11, 2011, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 failed to consider, or mis-
weighed, record evidence; whether Applicant was prejudiced by unreasonable delay in processing
his security clearance application (SCA); and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a market manager for
a Defense contractor.  He served in the Air Force from 1984 until his retirement 20 years later.  He
held a security clearance while on active duty.  Applicant is responsible for each of the nine
delinquent debts alleged in the SOR that have been charged off or otherwise neither paid nor
resolved.  Applicant’s claims to have paid off most of these debts, except for two, were not
corroborated.  Applicant’s debts were accumulated during his marriage.  Some of them were jointly
owed with his wife and some were in Applicant’s name alone.   
In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge concluded that, except for the two paid
debts, Applicant had failed to demonstrate responsible action in regard to his financial problems.
He noted that Applicant has been employed for two-and-a-half years and has the capability to
address his financial problems.  The Judge stated that “the limited amount of information available
for consideration” precluded a conclusion that Applicant had met his burden of persuasion as to
mitigation.  Decision at 6.  
Applicant claims that his case took too long to process.  He states that he completed his SCA
in 2007 and that, as a consequence of alleged delay,  the Judge’s decision was based upon outdated
credit report information.  We resolve this issue adversely to Applicant.  The record contains four
credit reports.  Three of them, dated April 2010, November 2009, and September 2007 respectively,
were included by the Government in the File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The fourth, dated
February 8, 2011, was provided by Applicant in his response to the FORM.  These reports,
considered together in light of the other record evidence, support the Judge’s findings and
conclusions.  Applicant has provided no reason to believe that the evidence before the Judge was
not reasonably up to date or that the time involved in processing his case prejudiced his ability to
present evidence in mitigation.  See ISCR Case No. 04-06517 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 21, 2005).
Moreover, there are no statutes of limitations or analogous deadlines for how soon a SOR must be
issued after submission of a SCA, after a subject interview, or after the occurrence of other
processing milestones.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-07360 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 10, 2002).  Applicant
has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the manner in which his case was processed.
3
Applicant also contends that the Judge should have gathered more information to show that
his financial situation has improved.  However, 
[u]nder the Directive, the Administrative Judge has no obligation to gather
information for either party in a case.  The Directive makes clear that it is the
responsibility of each party to present evidence for a Judge to consider in a case.
Furthermore, the correspondence sent to Applicant with the [FORM] put him on
adequate notice that it was his responsibility to gather and present evidence for the
Judge to consider in his case.  ISCR Case No. 03-00759 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 16,
2005).  (internal citations omitted)  
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider record evidence favorable to him, such
as his military career, his having previously held a security clearance, and improvements in his
credit score.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the record evidence.
Applicant’s appeal presentation is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.  Neither is it sufficient
to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-01168 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2011).  In support of
his appeal, Applicant presents matters not contained in the record, such as information about his
credit score obtained after the date of the Judge’s decision.  We cannot consider this new evidence
on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the
Appeal Board.”) See also ISCR Case No. 09-07792 at 2 (App. Bd. May 10, 2011).
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
4
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                   
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board