KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant relies on new evidence that the Board cannot consider.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 12-07393.a1
DATE: 06/26/2015
DATE: June 26, 2015
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-07393
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
November 6, 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 decision
on the written record.  On April 14, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider 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 been employed by a Defense contractor since 2010.  He previously held a
security clearance from 1990 to 2005.  A high school graduate, Applicant served in the military from
1985 to 1987 and in the Guard for two years thereafter.  Divorced from his first wife, Applicant
remarried in 2014.
Applicant’s SOR contains eight allegations of delinquent debt for such things as an
automobile repossession, cable services, a credit card, etc. Applicant attributes his financial
problems to his divorce and to his former spouse’s mishandling of their finances.  He also was
unemployed for brief periods in 2008 and 2010.  Although Applicant provided information that he
paid some of his debts, he had not resolved two judgments against him or the largest debts alleged
in the SOR.  The Judge found that Applicant had not presented evidence that he had included a
cancelled debt on his tax returns.  The Judge also found that there is no evidence that Applicant had
received counseling or budgeting assistance.
Applicant is in the process of selling property belonging to him, the proceeds of which he
plans to use for debt resolution.  He claims to be current on his other monthly expenses.  He has a
monthly remainder of $2,960.  
Applicant submitted a character reference describing him as a hard worker, involved father,
and person of good moral character.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Though clearing Applicant of the three debts he had paid off, he Judge concluded that
Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from the remainder of them.  He stated that the
record shows that Applicant has done little about these debts and/or failed to provide sufficient
evidence from which to conclude that he has a reasonable plan to resolve them.  Although noting
that an adverse decision is not a determination that an applicant is disloyal or lacking in patriotism,
the Judge concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion.
Discussion
2
Applicant’s brief includes matters not contained in the record, including a number of
documents that post-date the Judge’s decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant’s brief also draws attention to evidence he had provided in his
answers to DOHA interrogatories as well as his reply to the SOR and his response to the File of
Relevant Material.  The Judge made findings about many of the things Applicant has cited to.  His
argument is not enough to show that the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record
or that he mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01669 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 29,
2015).  
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
3