KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s representation that he submitted documents which were not considered by
the Judge is not supported.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-09433.a1
DATE: 07/02/2012
DATE: July 2, 2012
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-09433
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 June 1, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”  
2One of the documents that Applicant submitted with his appeal brief , a letter showing payment of a SOR debt,
was included in Applicant Exhibit A.  The Judge found in Applicant’s favor regarding this debt.  
2
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 March 26, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola
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 considered all of the
record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance 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: In 2004, Applicant had an
appendectomy, causing him to miss five days work.  As a consequence, he lost his job.  In 2009 he
experienced an on-the-job injury, followed by a fight to obtain medical disability status.  These
events caused Applicant to experience financial difficulties.
The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for medical bills, utility
expenses, cell phones, etc.  He found that four of the debts had been resolved but that several others
were ongoing as of the close of the record.  In the Analysis, the Judge noted the circumstances
outside Applicant’s control which were at the root of his problems.  However, he stated that
Applicant had not demonstrated that the majority of the SOR debts had been paid or were in the
process of being resolved.1  He denied Applicant a security clearance.
Applicant claims that all of his evidence did not make it into the record.  At the hearing, the
Judge left the record open to enable Applicant to submit additional matters.  Tr. at 19-20.  On
February 28, 2012, Applicant submitted eleven pages of documentary evidence, consisting
principally of letters from creditors regarding the resolution of certain debts.  This submission was
admitted as Applicant Exhibit A.  
However, in his appeal brief, Applicant includes documents which he states did not make
it into the record.  We have, in the past, remanded cases to the appropriate Judges for consideration
of documents that applicants had submitted but which were not incorporated into the records.
However, in this case there is nothing in the record to corroborate Applicant’s claim that he had
actually submitted additional documents.  Indeed, at least three of them actually post-date the
Judge’s decision.  Furthermore, three documents submitted on appeal are in the hearing file.2
Accordingly, we find no reason to remand the case.  Insofar as the documents Applicant has attached
to his appeal brief are outside the record, we cannot consider them.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new
evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”) 
3
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: Jean E. Smallin                  
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board