KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 12-02590.a1
DATE: 05/08/2014
DATE: May 8, 2014
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-02590
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
September 11, 2013, 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
2
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant  requested a decision
on the written record.  On January 31, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 findings of fact contained
errors and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has been employed by a Defense contractor since 2011.  He has not previously
held a security clearance.
Applicant has over $47,000 in delinquent debt, nearly $35,000 of which is for building
materials he purchased through his roofing business for the construction of his house.  The mortgage
he obtained for the house was not enough to cover all of the building costs.  The other debts pertain
to delinquent state and Federal employment taxes and a second mortgage on his house.  Applicant
states that he is paying $300 a month on the building materials debt, but he corroborated only one
such payment.  He has made no payments on any of the other debts.  His financial statement shows
that, except for the $300 monthly payment, he lacks the means to address his debts.
He attributes his financial problems to the failure of his business and to a brief period of
unemployment.  He has been continuously employed since August 2010.  He did not corroborate
his claim to have been injured on the job six months after starting up his business.  By the time he
was able to return to work, the country was experiencing an economic downturn, which affected his
business.  He has not received any financial or credit counseling.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his financial
difficulties.  He cited to evidence that these difficulties are recent and multiple and stated that
Applicant had failed to demonstrate that they resulted from circumstances outside his control.  He
stated that Applicant had provided evidence of only one payment in satisfaction of the building
materials debt, and that Applicant had not demonstrated a plan for addressing the totality of his
debts.  He said that Applicant appears to have disregarded his financial obligations for many years.
Discussion
Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s findings of fact.  Among other things, he argues
that the Judge erred in stating that he had a delinquent debt for a second mortgage.  We evaluate a
Judge’s findings to see if they are supported by substantial record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 11-13948 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 26, 2014).  Applicant’s SOR contained four allegations.  One was
for the debt for building materials, two were for tax debts, and the final one was a collection account
3
owed to a bank in the amount of $4,098.  We have found nothing in the record to show that this last
debt was for a delinquent second mortgage.  Applicant admitted the allegation, describing it as a
business debt.  The Judge’s finding is not supported by the record, although, even if he had not made
the error, there is no reason to believe that he would have decided the case differently.  Therefore,
it is harmless.  Beyond that, the Judge’s material findings are supported by substantial evidence or
constitute reasonable inferences from the evidence.
In support of his appeal, Applicant has submitted evidence from outside the record regarding
additional payments for his building materials debt.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation
for the decision.  Viewed in light of the totality of the evidence ,the 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 Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed; Michael Ra’anan       
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffery D. Billett       
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody       
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board