KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board does not presume error below.  The appealing party must raise an
issue of harmful error.  Applicants are expected to take reasonable steps to preserve their rights. 
Applicant misplaced clearance paperwork.  However, he could have acquired contact
information for DOHA through the exercise of reasonable diligence in an effort to secure an
extension or replacement documents.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 12-07948.a1
DATE: 07/03/2013
DATE: July 3, 2013
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-07948
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 10, 2012, DoD 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 that the case
be decided on the written record.  On April 16, 2013, after the close of the record, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
2
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether Applicant should be allowed
to submit evidence supporting his case; and (2) whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable security
clearance decision. 
The Judge found that Applicant accrued substantial delinquent debts over the past five years.
The total due on Applicant’s delinquent debts alleged in the SOR, and supported by entries in the
record credit bureau reports, was $65,330.  Applicant also defaulted on mortgage loans for two
homes, beginning in 2008.  Applicant and his wife had refinanced the mortgage on one of the homes
several times over the years, withdrawing equity to supplement their income.  Applicant submitted
no evidence of financial counseling.  The Judge concluded that Applicant had made little progress
toward resolution of the major mortgage debts, and offered no evidence of an effective plan to
resolve these debts or of plans for changes to prevent continued financial irresponsibility.  The
security concerns arising from Applicant’s debts were not mitigated.  
Applicant’s brief is accompanied by a large volume of material that is not part of the record
below and therefore constitutes new evidence.  The Board cannot consider new evidence in the
process of deciding appeals.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant admits he failed to meet the filing
deadline for the submission of materials in response to the government’s File of Relevant Material
(FORM).  The Board will consider this issue in the context of considering whether there are
sufficient grounds for remanding the case to the Judge for consideration of documents that Applicant
did not timely submit in response to the FORM.   
Applicant states that he was in the process of moving out of his house when he received the
DOHA package containing the FORM .  In the hustle and confusion of hectic packing the DOHA
package with the FORM, which contained all contact information, was accidently packed with
Applicant’s household effects.  Applicant was given 30 days after receipt to respond to the FORM.
In DOHA proceedings, parties are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights
under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-12061 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 15, 2009).  Here,
Applicant indicates that the contact information for DOHA was mislaid along with the rest of the
FORM.  While the loss of written contact information would be a hindrance, the Board concludes
that Applicant could have ascertained the necessary information to contact DOHA through the
exercise of reasonable diligence.  He submitted a detailed response to the SOR on August 31, 2012
with multiple page references to DOHA. The cover letter was addressed to DOHA.  Thus, DOHA
was not an entity with which he was unfamiliar.  Applicant later received his copy of the FORM
through his facility security officer, who had him sign a receipt for the FORM.  The facility security
officer was available to assist Applicant in obtaining the necessary contact information for DOHA.
There is no evidence that Applicant took advantage of this source.  After considering the
representations of Applicant on this issue, the Board concludes that there is no justification for
granting Applicant’s request to expand the record through a late submission of materials in response
to the FORM.
Applicant states at the outset of his brief that he is not assigning any fault or blame to the
Judge, because the Judge decided the case based upon the information he had available at the time.
3
However, Applicant’s appeal brief also contains a lengthy section entitled “Summary and Rebuttals”
where he takes issue with some of the findings of fact and the analysis of the Judge.  He argues that
his finances deteriorated because of his ongoing serious health problems and his wife’s loss of her
job, factors he believes mitigate the case against him.  Thus, reading the brief as a whole, the Board
concludes that Applicant is asserting error.  The problem is, in so doing, Applicant is relying on
matters outside the record, which he acknowledges the Judge cannot be held accountable for.  There
is no presumption of error below.  There is also a presumption in favor of regularity and good faith
on the part of DOHA Judges as they engage in the process of deciding cases.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 99-0019 at 5 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 1999).  Applicant is unable to rebut these presumptions.    
The gravamen of the Judge’s decision is the fact that Applicant has not made significant
progress in repaying his outstanding delinquent debts, has not demonstrated the capacity to avoid
additional delinquent debt, and his debt predicament is largely the result of voluntary choices.  These
conclusions are sustainable.  The Board finds no reason to believe that the Judge did not properly
weigh the evidence or that he failed to consider all the evidence of record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
11-06622 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2012).  We have considered the totality of Applicant’s arguments
on appeal and find no error in the Judge’s ultimate conclusions regarding mitigation.  The only
record evidence submitted by Applicant was his answer to the SOR.  In the answer, there was no
proffer of evidence regarding Applicant’s medical problems, and no specific evidence regarding how
his wife’s job layoff affected the family finances. The Judge made specific mention of the latter
factor in his decision.
There is no record evidence available to Applicant sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes 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
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).  Therefore,
the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
4
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin             
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board