KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  The Judge’s decision is
sustainable based on the evidence in the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 11-02253.a1
DATE: 05/14/2012
DATE: May 14, 2012
In Re:
---------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-02253
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
John Mahoney, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 27, 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 hearing.  On February 10, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan
Metz, Jr. 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 issues on appeal:  whether there is a basis for reopening the
record to allow consideration of evidence that was developed after the hearing.  For the following
reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision. 
The Judge made the following findings of fact:  Applicant is 50 years old.  Her delinquent
debts consist of two education loan accounts totaling over $20,000, 15 medical accounts totaling
nearly $7,000, seven telephone accounts totaling nearly $1,300, two insurance accounts totaling
nearly $1,000, and state and federal income tax debt totaling over $3,300.  Applicant has been the
victim of a series of very unfortunate events since 2001.  In 2001 she fell at work and hurt her back.
She had medical insurance that covered most of her expenses, including surgery in 2001.  She
returned to work in April 2003 but was in a lot of pain.  She worked until December 2003, when the
pain became too unbearable for her to continue her job.  She has been unemployed ever since.  She
had a second surgery in 2004.  In 2005, Applicant was in an automobile accident, which aggravated
her bad back.  Her medical bills were covered by the other driver’s insurance.  
In 2004, Applicant’s father fell ill and she traveled to see him, using borrowed money.  In
2007, Applicant’s brother was beaten into a coma.  Applicant borrowed money to go see him in the
hospital, and when he died in February 2008, she borrowed money to bury him.  
Applicant received $2,000 per month in disability insurance payments from March 2004
through September 2011.  In September 2011 she received a $28,000 lump-sum payment from the
Social Security Administration (SSA) for back disability payments.  Applicant was rated 100%
disabled, effective July 2006.  She is now eligible for Medicare, which will reduce her prescription
costs and may help with delinquent medical bills dating back to January 2009.  SSA is currently
paying Applicant $500 per month.
In November 2004, Applicant founded her own company, however the company currently
exists only on paper. There is the prospect of contract work for the company if she can obtain her
clearance.  She claims, without corroboration, to have a funding source that will give her a
$10,000,000 line of credit for her business startup costs once she has her clearance.  Applicant
claims to have made arrangements with most of her creditors.  While she provided some proof of
payments made and accounts paid, most of her arrangements are uncorroborated.  She cannot afford
the monthly payments required to get a hardship deferment on her education loans.  Applicant
claimed she had financial counseling but provided no documentation.  She did not submit a budget.
The Judge reached the following conclusions: The Government established a case for
disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not fully mitigate the security concerns.  Her
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple, and not apparently due to unusual circumstances
not likely to recur.  No reasonable person would conclude that the series of calamities that have
befallen Applicant are not circumstances beyond her control, nor that she has acted irresponsibly
in addressing her debts.  While Applicant has taken little action to address her debts, she has had
little means to do so.  Nevertheless, Applicant has been under fairly severe financial pressure for ten
years.  Applicant has overcome many personal hardships to found her company and get it qualified
for Government contracts.  However, progress on her debts relies on too many contingencies.
Assuming that she gets a line of credit for her startup costs, she still has to hire employees, pay them,
get Government work, and get paid long enough to address her debts.  The pendency of Government
contracts does nothing to show that she is gaining control over her finances or will be able to
establish and meet payment arrangements for her delinquent debts.  Unless she is able to find
Government work that does not require a clearance, it is difficult to imagine how her debts can be
resolved in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Applicant submits new matters not part of the record below and asserts that the Judge’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by the new and material evidence provided
on appeal.  Applicant argues that the new evidence proves by preponderant evidence that numerous
mitigating conditions apply, thereby rendering the Judge’s decision erroneous.  Applicant states that
new and material evidence has come into existence since the Judge’s February 10, 2012 decision,
and that despite due diligence, this evidence was not reasonably available prior to that decision.
Applicant argues that this state of affairs supports the Board reopening the record and reversing the
Judge’s decision.
The Board’s authority to review cases is limited to instances where the appealing party has
alleged harmful error on the part of the Judge, and it does not review cases de novo. Directive, ¶
E3.1.32.  Although Applicant cites a federal court case involving another agency for the general 
proposition that an administrative proceeding can be reopened to consider new evidence, the
Directive specifically prohibits the Board from receiving or considering new evidence on appeal.
Directive, ¶ E3.1.29.  There is no presumption of error below, and Applicant has not established
harmful error on the part of the Judge based on the existing record. Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate
unfavorable 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: James E. Moody      
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board