KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s finding that there was apaucity of mitigating evidence is consistemnt with
the record.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05074.a1
DATE: 02/05/2016
DATE: February 5, 2015
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05074
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
March 28, 2015, 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
2
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On December 7, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 worked for a Federal contractor since 2002.  His SOR lists seven delinquent
debts, that total $109,000.  The largest of these is a mortgage account.  The debts are supported by
Applicant’s admissions and by his credit reports.
The mortgage debt is past-due in the amount of over $84,000.  Applicant asserts that his ex-
wife was to make the payments.  He has since moved back into the house and is seeking a loan
modification.  He has provided no documentary evidence of a modification agreement, payment, or
a payment plan.  Applicant has denied several of the debts, although they remain on his credit
reports.  He provided no evidence of payment, payment plans, or reasons to dispute the validity of
the debts.  He provided no information about his current financial status, budget, or if he has
received counseling.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s debts are recent and unresolved.  Applicant provided no
evidence that would establish mitigation, such as that the debts arose from circumstances outside
his control, that any of them had been paid, that he had received counseling, or that he had a basis
to dispute them.   
Discussion
Applicant asserts that some of the Judge’s findings are in error.  He states that his mortgage
account has been transferred to another institution and that he has resolved a debt owed to a credit
union, matters that he referenced, although briefly, in his reply to the SOR.  He also states that he
has a modification agreement.  Applicant has attached to his brief documents that are not included
in the record.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  We have
examined the Judge’s findings in light of the record as a whole.  We conclude that they are based
on substantial record evidence. Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the
outcome of the case.  Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of
security concern are sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).
 
3
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The Judge’s finding that there was a paucity of evidence in mitigation was consistent with
the record before him.  This lack of evidence supported his conclusion that Applicant had failed to
meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  See ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug.
25, 2015) (A paucity of evidence showing how debts were incurred and what steps the applicant
took to resolve them supported the Judge’s adverse 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