KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant appears to argue that she was unaware that she should respond to the
FORM.  The Board concludes she was not denied due process because she was advised in
writing of her opportunity to submit documents demonstrating objection, rebuttal, mitigation,
extenuation or explanation.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12–09279.a1
DATE: 02/05/2016
DATE: February 5, 2016
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-09279
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
December 8, 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 November 21, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 she was denied due process and
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’s SOR lists delinquent debts that total about $134,000, the majority of which are
for student loans.  In 2013, Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, listing over $116,000
in liabilities, including $2,000 in Federal taxes.  In her answer to the SOR, Applicant acknowledged
her debts, stating that she had overextended herself.  She also states that this situation will not recur
because of her bankruptcy plan, which will be completed in 2018.  Applicant did not provide
evidence that she had paid any of the required monthly payments of $706.  On her 2012 security
clearance application, Applicant stated that her wages were being garnished for student loans from
1997.  There is no record evidence as to the circumstances that caused Applicant’s financial
difficulties.  Applicant’s credit reports list debts that are not included in her bankruptcy petition, and
the status of these debts is not clear.
The Judge’s Analysis
In concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from her delinquent
debts, the Judge stated that there is no evidence of any payments.  Additionally, Applicant provided
no evidence that her problems were caused by circumstances that were outside her control, nor did
she demonstrate responsible action in regard to them.  The Judge noted her finding that Applicant
had not supplied evidence of any payment under her bankruptcy plan.  She also noted her finding
that Applicant has other debts that are not addressed in her bankruptcy.
Discussion
Applicant states that from reading the paperwork she received that she needed only to be
truthful in her presentation, which she claims she was.  We construe this as an argument that she did
not know that she needed to make a response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) and,
therefore, did not receive due process.  
The FORM advised Applicant that the record as it then stood contained no documentary
proof of payments under her bankruptcy plan, nor did it contain evidence of the circumstances that
3
caused her debts.  The FORM stated to Applicant that she had “30 days in which to submit a
documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation or explanation as
appropriate.”  It also stated that if she did not provide a response the Judge would make a decision
based solely on the FORM that Applicant received.  DOHA provided Applicant similar guidance
in the cover letter that accompanied the FORM, and DOHA also sent her a copy of the Directive,
with its explanation of her rights and responsibilities about responding to the FORM.  In a DOHA
proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion that he or she should have a clearance.
Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Under the circumstances, Applicant’s failure to have provided a written
response to the FORM cannot fairly be attributed to an absence of clear guidance regarding her
rights.  Applicant was not denied the due process afforded by the Directive.
Applicant cites to her SOR answer concerning her bankruptcy filing.  She states that, had she
submitted her attorney’s name and phone number, her case would have turned out differently.
However, even if she had provided her attorney’s contact information, the Judge was not authorized
to conduct additional inquiry, which would have conflicted with her duty to serve as an impartial
fact-finder.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03062 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 11,  2015).  As stated above,
Applicant bore the responsibility for presenting evidence in mitigation.  As it stands, Applicant’s
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. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016).
Applicant states that she is missed at her job.  The Directive does not permit us to consider the
impact that an adverse decision might have on an applicant.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at
4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 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.”
4
Order 
The Decision is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan             
Michael Y. 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