KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-04731.a1
DATE: 01/13/2015
DATE: January 13, 2015
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-04731
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
March 20, 2014, 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
2
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On September 15, 2014, after considering 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 Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: 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 worked for a Defense contractor since 2004.  Divorced for nine years, he has
two daughters who live with his former spouse.  This is his first application for a clearance from the
DoD, although he has held a clearance in the past.
Applicant admitted 12 of the 16 SOR allegations.  The SOR alleges that he did not timely
file his Federal tax returns from 2007 through 2010.  It also alleges that he has delinquent tax debts
owed to the IRS.  Applicant made inconsistent statements about his Federal tax issues, and he
submitted no tax returns to clarify or corroborate his claims that he had eventually filed.  He
provided a copy of a repayment agreement with the IRS for tax years 2008 and 2009 but provided
nothing regarding tax year 2010.  He has provided no evidence of any payments toward his
delinquent taxes.  
The SOR alleges twelve other delinquent debts, totaling $12,367.  They became delinquent
between 2005 and 2012.  Although Applicant has a monthly surplus of $450 after expenses, he
provided no evidence of payment of any of these debts.  
Applicant provided no evidence of financial counseling.  Neither did he submit evidence of
the quality of his work performance or of a track record regarding the handling of sensitive
information.  He submitted no character references describing his judgment, trustworthiness, or
reliability.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the
security concerns raised by his financial delinquencies.  He stated that the weight to which his
repayment agreement is entitled is reduced by the absence of any evidence of actual payment.  In
the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant’s debts exceed $25,000, and they continue
to grow as he fails to address them.  He stated that there is no evidence that the debts arose from
circumstances beyond Applicant’s control, nor is there evidence of the quality of his professional
performance or descriptions of his judgment, trustworthiness, integrity, or reliabilty.  
Discussion
3
Applicant states that he has held a clearance for years without incident or concern.  We note
his answer in the security clearance application (SCA) in which he states that he has never had a
clearance denied, suspended, or revoked.  To the extent that he is arguing that the Judge did not
consider this answer, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul 28, 2014).  To the
extent that he is challenging the Judge’s finding that he provided no evidence regarding his track
record of handling sensitive information, we conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security
concern are supported by substantial evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd.
Jul. 25, 2014).  Even if the Judge erred regarding this answer to the SCA, it did not likely affect the
outcome of the case.  Therefore, it is harmless.  
Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record.  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.  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