KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant was advised of his rights.  Pro se Applicants are expected to take reasonable
steps to protect their rights.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-00330.a1
DATE: 01/13/2015
DATE: January 13, 2015
In Re:
---------- 
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-00330
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
February 28, 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 19, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge James F. Duffy 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 decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant works for a Defense contractor.  He retired from the U.S. military and holds two
advanced degrees.  He held a security clearance while in the military.  Applicant operated a part-
time real estate business, working as a broker for the firm since 2005.  Applicant’s SOR alleges two
delinquent debts, totaling $28,176.  SOR ¶ 1(a) resulted from a default judgment in excess of
$21,000 entered against Applicant’s business.  A complaint against Applicant personally was
dismissed, though the reason for this is not contained in the record.  Applicant disputed this debt
with the credit reporting agencies.  SOR ¶ 1(b) was an unpaid collection account, credit reports
listing it as in excess of $6,000.  Applicant’s SOR answer stated that this was for a credit card that
became delinquent during the decline of the real estate market.  Applicant claimed to be making
monthly payments of $50 toward satisfaction of this debt.  Applicant provided no proof of payments
toward his delinquent debts.  Neither did he submit evidence of his work performance, his history
with handling sensitive information, or his character.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F.  He
concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a basis for Applicant’s dispute of ¶ 1(a), precluding
favorable application of Mitigating Condition 20(e).  He stated that Applicant’s debts are ongoing,
significant, and long-standing.  He stated that, though Applicant attributed his problems to the
collapse of the real estate market, he has failed to demonstrate responsible action in regard to his
debts.  The Judge noted that Applicant provided no information about his monthly income, expenses,
or debt payments.  The Judge also concluded that Applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort
to pay his debts.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted Applicant’s military service and
clean criminal record.  However, he stated that Applicant’s financial problem remained a concern,
leaving the Judge with doubts about Applicant’s suitability for a clearance.
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he had provided no proof of debt payment.
The record contains the explanations Applicant provided in his Answer to the SOR addressing
payments on the credit card debt.  However, there is no corroborating evidence for these
explanations in the form of receipts, cancelled checks, statements from creditors, etc.  Moreover,
3
aside from evidence that the default judgment was entered against Applicant’s company rather than
against him personally, there is nothing to show that this debt is being resolved.  The Judge’s
material findings of security concern are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same
record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
Applicant contends that he did not know he had to submit information about his professional
performance, etc.  He states that had he known such information was required, he could have
provided it.  We note the Judge’s finding that Applicant provided no character evidence.  However,
we find no reason to conclude that, but for this failure, the Judge would have given Applicant a
clearance.  In any event, Applicant was advised, in the File of Relevant Material (FORM), in a letter
from DOHA administrative personnel accompanying the FORM, and in the Directive, that he was
permitted to submit evidence in mitigation, extenuation, rebuttal, etc.  Nevertheless, Applicant
provided nothing in response to the FORM.  In fact, the letter from DOHA stated that Applicant
could provide “any material” that he wished.  Although pro se Applicants are not expected to present
their cases as if they were lawyers, they should take reasonable steps to protect their rights.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-14723 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 2014).   In this case, the information that
DOHA provided Applicant was sufficient to apprise a reasonable person of his or her right to submit
evidence.  We find no reason to believe that Applicant was denied his due process rights.
Applicant’s brief cites to record evidence, such as his having held a clearance for many years
without incident or concern.  Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that
the Judge considered all of the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-00725 at 3 (App. Bd. (Oct
3, 2014).  Applicant’s brief refers to matters from outside the record.  We are not permitted to
consider new evidence on appeal.
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 Judge’s Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan               
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                  
4
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board