KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence.  Record discloses no reason to believe
that Applicant was denied his right to present evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 11-00125.a1
DATE: 01/17/2012
DATE: January 17, 2012
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-00125
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 8, 2011, 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 October 31, 2011, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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;
whether the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence; and whether the Judge’s decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following we affirm the Judge’s
decision.  Note: The SOR included a paragraph 2, which quoted the Guideline E security concern
1This finding is contained in the Analysis portion of the Judge’s decision.  
as found in Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15.  However, paragraph 2 contained no allegation of security
significant conduct.  Department Counsel noted this anomaly and presented no evidence or argument
under Guideline E.  The Judge dismissed the reference to Guideline E.  Decision at 2.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a married father of five.
He is a shop supervisor for a Federal contractor.  He has worked in that capacity, and as a mechanic,
for other employers.  Applicant owes delinquent debts, totaling $141,911.  Five of the debts have
been charged off.  In his clearance interview, he stated that he would follow up on alleged debts
which he claimed not to recognize.  Additionally, he entered into a 12-month temporary payment
plan for a charged off second mortgage alleged in the SOR.   However, he has not had credit
counseling.  He did not provide a financial statement, and the record contains no information as to
his income, monthly expenses, savings, or other resources available for debt repayment.  After
receiving the SOR, he pursued Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.  He provided no documents
evidencing a bankruptcy filing or showing which debts were resolved through bankruptcy.1
In the Analysis, the Judge noted the paucity of record evidence to show compliance with
Applicant’s repayment plan.  She stated that the record before her was sparse as to mitigating
evidence and that she could not conclude that Applicant’s problems were under control.
Applicant’s brief includes evidence not contained in the record, for example, detailed
information regarding the circumstances underlying his debts.  We cannot consider new evidence
on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  See ISCR Case No. 10-10087 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2011).
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence, or that she mis-
weighed the evidence.  He points to his employment record, arguing that he would not have held
such jobs if he had been perceived as untrustworthy.  The Decision demonstrates that the Judge
considered Applicant’s employment history.  However, given the extent of his delinquent debts and
the scarcity of mitigating evidence, her adverse decision is sustainable.  Applicant has not rebutted
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence.  Neither has he demonstrated
that she did not properly weigh the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-12742 at 3 (App. Bd.
Feb. 25, 2011).    
Applicant cites to the Judge’s finding that he had provided little evidence regarding the
details of his bankruptcy.  He states that information that DOHA sent him explaining the process
was vague and that he did not know that he was to present more detailed information.  However, he
was provided with a copy of the FORM, which included the evidence underlying the Guideline F
allegations.  An accompanying letter advised Applicant as follows:  
[Y]ou have an opportunity to review the attached copy of that complete file and
submit any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider or to make any
objections you may have as to the information in the file.  
The letter also advised him to pay “careful attention” to his right to be represented by counsel.
Letter to Applicant, dated June 17, 2011.  In a DOHA proceeding, it is the applicant’s task to present
evidence in mitigation of the security concerns which he has admitted and/or which have been
established by the Government’s evidence.  Applicant provided a written response to the FORM,
which contained some information about his bankruptcy.  The record discloses no reason to believe
that Applicant was denied his right to present evidence or that he was not adequately advised of his
rights under the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-04464 at 2 (App. Bd. May 8, 2009).    
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: Jeffrey D. Billett                
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board