KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Having chosen to represent herself, Applicant cannot fairly complain about the quality
of her self-representation.  There is no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied due process. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-00429.a1
DATE: 09/12/2014
DATE: September 12, 2014
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-00429
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James E. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
March 18, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
2
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 July 23, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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 she was denied due process 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 served in the military, during which time she held a security clearance.  She
received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for DUI and another for battery, resulting in a reduction in
rank. She was barred from reenlisting due to her misconduct.  She has been employed as a Federal
contractor since her discharge and has worked for her current employer since 2012.
Applicant has significant financial problems.  They began when her commander reduced her
in rank under the NJP.  She became unable to pay her debts and defaulted on several of them.  She
provided evidence that she paid two of her debts at the time she completed her SCA and paid four
other debts shortly before submitting her Answer to the SOR.  She provided no information that she
had disputed, settled, paid, or otherwise resolved any of her remaining SOR debts. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s problems did not result from circumstances beyond
her control, in light of evidence that they began when she was punished for misconduct.  He also
noted that her documentation shows that she took action regarding her debts at “critical junctures
of her current  security clearance review.”  Decision at 5. She provided no documentation that she
had taken action on her debts in the nine months between the submission of her SCA and her
response to the SOR.  He concluded that she had paid some minor debts solely for the purpose of
gaining a clearance.  He stated that he is not convinced that she will continue to manage her finances
in a responsible manner once the clearance review process is over.  He stated that she had submitted
no evidence of financial counseling or that she had disputed any of her debts.  Although noting
Applicant’s military service, her prior experience in holding a clearance, and her candor in
disclosing her debt problems, he concluded that she had not mitigated the concerns in her case.
Discussion
Applicant points out that she was not represented by counsel or by some other person with
knowledge of the clearance process.  She states that she was not aware that she had to submit
additional documentation.  The record shows, however, that Department Counsel’s File of Relevant
Material (FORM) advised her that she could submit a documentary response presenting matters in
3
rebuttal, extenuation, and mitigation.  By letter accompanying the FORM, DOHA also advised
Applicant of her right to submit “any material” she wished in response.  Applicant did submit a
letter, in which she stated that much of her effort at debt resolution took place over the phone.
Therefore, she had nothing in writing to provide.  The record shows that Applicant was given
sufficient notice of her rights.   Having chosen to represent herself, Applicant cannot fairly complain
about the quality of her self-representation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-08118 at 2-3 (App. Bd.
Aug. 12 , 2013).  There is no reason to believe that Applicant was denied due process.
Applicant has challenged the Judge’s mitigation analysis.  In doing so, she presents matters
outside the record, which we cannot consider.  See, e.g, ISCR Case No. 08-05379 at 2 (App. Bd.
Sep. 15, 2010).  She points to evidence in the record of her payment of certain debts.  However, she
has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has
she shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13984 at 3 (App.
Bd. Feb. 20, 2014).  The Judge’s findings about the timing of Applicant’s debt payments support
his adverse decision.  Id.  
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: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
4
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board