KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to make a prima facie showing that he had submitted evidence that
did not make it into the record.  The error in the Judge’s findings did not likely affect the
outcome of the case.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 14-00967.a1
DATE: 01/20/2015
DATE: January 20, 2015
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-00967
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
April 24, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and 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 October 30, 2014, after considering the
record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry
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 he was denied due process; whether
the Judge’s findings of fact contained errors; and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
2
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline B are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Born and
raised in Pakistan, Applicant attended college in the U.S. and became a U.S. citizen recently.  In
2005, Applicant purchased a house, using credit cards to make the down payment.  He refinanced
the house two years later, using money from the refinance to pay the balances on a few of his credit
cards.  In 2009, Applicant was laid off from his job.  He had no savings and was not able to pay his
mortgage or credit card debts.
Applicant contacted the holders of his credit cards and his mortgage, requesting assistance.
His mortgage company reduced his interest, and he is now current on this debt.  He also negotiated
a reduced payment on one of the SOR debts and successfully disputed another one.  However,
regarding the remaining three debts, he provided no documentation showing that they had been paid
or settled.  
Applicant states that he has changed his spending habits.  He has moved to a smaller
residence, with a reduced monthly rental expense.  Additionally, he and his wife have moved their
son to a public school, and they use public transportation.  Applicant’s wife receives $1,800 a month
as a stipend while working on an advanced degree.  Applicant has not shown how he will make
payments on any taxes that might come due as a result of his negotiated settlements.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cited to Applicant’s evidence that he had reduced his living expenses.  However,
she noted that he had not settled or paid the three debts discussed above.  She also stated that (1) he
had not provided evidence of his income and ability to pay these debts; (2) he did not submit a
budget; or (3) outline a plan for resolving his debts.  She stated that without this information it is not
possible to determine the status of his finances.
Discussion
Applicant raises an issue of due process.  In doing so, he asserts matters from outside the
record.  Although we normally do not consider new evidence, we have done so in the past when it
pertains to an issue such as due process or jurisdiction.  See, e.g., ISCR 11-15005 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan.
24, 2014).  Applicant contends that he submitted matters in response to the File of Relevant Material
that did not make it into the record.  However, the assertions in his Appeal Brief are not sufficient
to constitute a prima facie showing that he in fact mailed or otherwise conveyed to DOHA the
documents in question.  To the extent that Applicant relies on evidence that was created after the
close of the record, we cannot consider it.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  We resolve this issue adversely to
Applicant.
3
Applicant claims that the Judge made an error in her findings.  We examine a Judge’s
findings to see if they are supported by “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 states that the Judge erred in finding that his wife’s stipend is
$1,800 a month.  He states that it is actually $18,000 a year.  Applicant’s argument is persuasive.
The challenged finding appears to be an error.  However, there is no reason to conclude that this
error affected the overall outcome of the case.  Therefore, it is harmless.   
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             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board