KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant received reasonable notice of her right to submit evidence in response to the
File of Relevant Material.  The Judge’s material findings are supported by substantial evidence. 
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 12-02371.a1
DATE: 06/30/2014
DATE: June 30, 2014
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-02371
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 July
16, 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 of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On April 14, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether she was denied due process;
whether the Judge’s findings contained errors; and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge found that Applicant had delinquent debts totaling about $26,000.  These debts
ranged from $86 to nearly $8,000.  None of these debts have been paid or resolved.  Applicant
submitted no evidence that she had contacted any of her creditors, sought the assistance of a debt
consolidation company, or disputed any of her debts.
Applicant’s annual salary is over $45,000.  She has a net monthly income of $3,751.  After
expenses and payment of ongoing debts, including a mortgage and car loan, she has a surplus of $63.
She presented no evidence of financial counseling.
Applicant provided no evidence of the quality of her job performance, her duties, or her
history of compliance with security procedures.  She submitted no character references.  
Applicant was unemployed from July 2004 to April 2005, as a consequence of which she
became unable to pay her debts.  She stopped paying them because she had no money.  She stated
that she would review her credit report to see if any of the debts were not hers.  She also stated that
she bought a house in 2007 and, after moving in, realized that she could not continue to pay all of
her debts.  Her credit card balances increased, and she stopped paying old debts.  
The Judge’s Analysis
In evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation, the Judge stated that Applicant had failed to
provide evidence that she was resolving her debts or otherwise addressing her problems.  Applicant
presented no evidence that she had made an effort to pay her debts or dispute any of them.  In the
whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant had been on notice since a January 2012
clearance interview that her debts could result in adverse consequences to her.  Even after she
received the SOR and a copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) she took no action to resolve
any of her debts.  Moreover, she provided no response to the FORM.  The Judge concluded that
Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion as to mitigation.
Discussion
Applicant states that she did not provide proof of debt payment because she was not advised
that she should do so.  We construe this as an argument that she was not apprised of her
responsibilities to respond to the FORM, thereby denying her due process.  
In the FORM, Department Counsel notes Applicant’s claim that she had experienced
unemployment in the past.  He goes on to say that there “is no documentary evidence of any
3
payments or steps taken to resolve any of the 15 alleged delinquent debts . . .” (emphasis in original)
Department Counsel also stated the following:
There is no evidence of efforts by [Applicant] to contact creditors, establish payment
arrangements, and make payments.  In fact, in her Answer to the Statement of
Reasons, [Applicant] reveals no intent to repay any of these creditors . . . No clear
explanation [has] been provided as to the origin of [Applicant’s] financial
delinquencies.  She has not provided any evidence of credit counseling or steps to
reduce her monthly expenses.  There is no evidence of any contacts with creditors
or efforts to repay her delinquent debts. [Applicant] bears the burden to demonstrate
that her financial indebtedness does not reflect poorly on her responsibility and
judgment and that she is taking significant steps toward resolution . . .
In summing up the Government’s position, Department Counsel asserted that 
[Applicant] has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that she is taking
significant steps to resolve the 15 alleged delinquent debts, nor provided any
explanation as to how the indebtedness occurred.  There is no evidence that
[Applicant] has taken steps to reduce her expenses or repay her delinquent debts.
[Applicant] bears the burden of production and the burden of persuasion in
mitigation.  
Department Counsel concluded by stating that Applicant had an opportunity to submit
documentary information within thirty days of receipt of the FORM.  Department Counsel’s
guidance was clear and detailed as to the paucity of mitigating evidence regarding Applicant’s poor
financial condition and also clear that Applicant bore the responsibility of providing such evidence.
Moreover, DOHA sent the FORM to Applicant with a cover letter that stated that she had “an
opportunity to review the attached copy of the complete file and submit any material [she wished]
the Administrative Judge to consider or to make any objections [she] may have as to the information
in the File.”  The cover letter advised that Applicant had 30 days from receipt in which to submit
her objections or additional information.  The FORM and cover letter were accompanied by a copy
of the Directive, which contains guidance as to an applicant’s rights and responsibilities in DOHA
adjudications.  Applicant signed a receipt for the package that included the cover letter, FORM, and
Directive.    
Applicant received notice sufficient to apprise a reasonable person as to the kind of evidence
that might mitigate the concerns arising from her delinquent debts and of her responsibility to
provide such evidence.  As the Judge noted, however, Applicant did not provide a response to the
FORM.  Although pro se applicants are not expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take
timely and reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-
03743 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2011).  Applicant was not denied reasonable notice of her rights and
obligations regarding mitigation.
4
Applicant challenges the Judge’s findings about her monthly income and expenses.  These
findings are based upon the Personal Financial Statement that Applicant submitted in her response
to DOHA interrogatories.  Item 5 at 9.  We find no error in the challenged findings.  If Applicant
believed that her Personal Financial Statement needed to be updated or explained it was her
responsibility to provide such information.  The Judge’s material findings of security concern are
supported by substantial evidence.  Applicant has not cited to any harmful error in the Judge’s
findings.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-12803 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 21, 2014).  
Applicant has submitted evidence not contained in the record.  We cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00703 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 27, 2014).  The Judge
examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  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: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board