KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline F
DIGEST: The Directive does not permit the Board to consider the impact of an unfavorable
decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-06226.a1
DATE: 10/15/2015
DATE: October 15, 2015
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06226
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
January 31, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 19, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline C 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 issue raised on appeal: Applicant is
delinquent on a home equity line of credit (LOC) in the amount of a little over $12,400.  This debt
has been delinquent since 2012.  The LOC pertains to a rental property that Applicant owns and that
is worth $750,000 and in which he has nearly $500,000 in equity.  Applicant contends that he has
requested a loan modification and that the lender will not accept any payments during the
modification process.  He did not corroborate his claim.  
Applicant attributes his financial problems to periods of unemployment and also to
diminutions in pay when he was working.  Despite these difficulties, Applicant and his wife fully
finance their sons’ educational costs and living expenses.  Applicant enjoys a good reputation for
his work performance and his ability to follow procedural guidelines.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found that Applicant’s delinquent LOC is an ongoing debt and that there is no
reason to conclude that the circumstances underlying it have changed.  Though noting Applicant’s
unemployment, which was beyond his control, she concluded that he did not show responsible
action in regard to the LOC.  She cited to evidence that Applicant has prioritized his sons’
educational expenses over his obligation to the lender.  She also noted that Applicant had presented
no evidence of financial counseling or that he is working with the lender to resolve the LOC.  
Discussion
Applicant’s brief contains matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider.
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant notes that his continued employment is contingent upon his having
a clearance.  However, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable
decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02041 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).  
3
Applicant cites to his having worked in the Defense industry for many years and his excellent
security record.  This was evidence that the Judge was required to consider, along with all the other
evidence in the record.  However, even those with good security histories may experience
circumstances which draw their judgment into question.  The Government does not have to wait
until a person commits a security violation in order to make an adverse clearance decision.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 11-13626 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2013).  Applicant argues that he has
demonstrated resolution of his LOC.  However, the Judge’s findings and conclusions about this debt,
including the lack of corroboration for Applicant’s claims, are supportable.  In any event, even if
a debt has been paid or settled, a Judge can still consider the underlying circumstances of the debt
for what they may reveal about an applicant’s judgment and reliability.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-02394 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  Given record evidence of the age of the delinquent LOC, its ongoing status as of the close
of the record, Applicant’s substantial net worth (and apparent ability to pay the debt), and his
prioritizing of his sons’ educational expenses over the interests of the creditor, the decision is
sustainable.  “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: Jean E. Smallin                
Jean E. Smallin
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
4
Member, Appeal Board