KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board concludes that any error by the Judge were minor and did not affect the
outcome of the case.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-03373.a1
DATE: 05/07/2015
DATE: May 7, 2015
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03373
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
September 12, 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 Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On March 2, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
security clearance decision. 
The Judge found: Applicant is 38 years old.  He failed to file his federal tax returns for tax
years 2006 through 2008 and owes about $14,000 in federal taxes for those years.  In 2010 he began
a payment plan with the IRS, paid regularly, and retired the debt in October 2014. Applicant failed
to timely file his 2006 State A income tax return and became indebted to the state in the amount of
$6,266 for tax years 2006 and 2007.  A State A tax judgment for $4,588 remains outstanding. 
Applicant made one payment of $623 toward this judgment in 2015.  State B filed a tax lien against
Applicant in 2011 in the amount of $1,084. $274 remains outstanding and Applicant has not made
any payment arrangements with State B to discharge this debt.   Applicant is indebted to a law firm
for a judgment of $13,696, entered in 2012.  He has not made any progress in addressing this
judgment.  Applicant accumulated four consumer debts for an amount exceeding $1,600.  Three of
the debts have been paid.   He also accrued a delinquent home equity loan for approximately
$55,000.  The debt was the result of a foreclosure on his home in 2006.  The proceeds of the sale
covered a first mortgage but were insufficient to satisfy $55,000 of the home equity loan.  A
creditor’s suit was filed in 2013 but its status is unknown.  The debt is still outstanding.  Applicant
and his wife were divorced in 2007.  The divorce had a negative impact on Applicant’s finances.
The Judge concluded: Applicant’s debts are attributed to lapses in Judgment in the
management of his financial affairs.  These lapses were accompanied by extenuating circumstances
in the form of a difficult separation and divorce that entailed considerable cost burdens that affected
his finances.  However, he has not addressed one consumer debt or his State B tax debt.  He also has
not addressed the large home equity debt.  Too many of his debts remain outstanding to support a
conclusion that Applicant has acted responsibly regarding debt repayment.  Applicant’s corrective
actions to date are insufficient to mitigate the Government’s security concerns.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains several representations regarding his finances that go
beyond the evidence of record.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.   
Applicant takes issue with two of the Judge’s findings concerning the dollar amounts of
indebtedness and payment amounts.  After a review of the record and the Judge’s decision, the
Board concludes that any errors on the part of the Judge involving amounts are minor in nature, did
not influence the central aspects of the Judge’s analysis, and did not affect the outcome of the case. 
2
Applicant argues that he has held a clearance for many years and his debt situation did not
affect his ability to properly handle classified information.  He states that during his difficulties he
never considered selling information.  The Judge made extensive findings about the context in which
Applicant experienced his financial difficulties.  However, given the extent and the ongoing nature
of his debts, the Board concludes that the Judge’s overall decision is supported by the record. 
Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-06438 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2009).  
The Board does not review a case de novo.  The mitigating evidence cited by Applicant is
not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  “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).  Therefore,
the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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
3