KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision on
an applicant.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-06895.a1
DATE: 01/11/2016
DATE: January 11, 2016
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06895
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  
May 30, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
2
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 October 20, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 weighed the evidence in
a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge concluded that Applicant did not provide enough evidence to mitigate security
concerns arising from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action and delinquent debts totaling over $35,000.
We construe Applicant’s appeal as a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.  However,
his argument is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-0202 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 24,
2015).  Applicant’s brief includes new evidence, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant states because he has lost his clearance he is unemployed.  The Directive does not permit
us to consider the impact that an unfavorable decision might have upon an applicant.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 14-03112 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 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
3
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board