KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to
take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights. Failure to take timely, reasonable steps to
protect their rights does not constitute a denial of those rights.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-06916.a1
DATE: 02/19/2016
DATE: February 19, 2016
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06916
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
April 15, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On November 15,
2015, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed,
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.  
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether Applicant was afforded the
procedural due process he was entitled to under the Directive.  Consistent with the following, we
affirm.
The Judge made the following findings:  Applicant had nine delinquent consumer debts and
one judgment debt totaling $16,874.  The record does not address whether Applicant obtained
financial counseling.  He offered no evidence showing a workable budget, from which his ability
to resolve his admitted delinquencies and avoid additional debt problems could be predicted with
any confidence.  Applicant denied that he deliberately falsified his financial information by
answering “No” in response to the questions about debt delinquencies on his 2014 security clearance
application.  He ascribed this falsification to his “oversight in checking the wrong block.”  However,
his submission of a document in 2014 to a creditor offering repayment options is not consistent with
his assertion that he affirmatively denied the existence of his delinquent debts in 2014 through an
innocent mistake.
The Judge concluded: The record does not establish mitigation of Applicant’s financial
irresponsibility under any of the Guideline F mitigating provisions.  Applicant’s attempt to justify
his false denial of his delinquent debts on his security clearance application is not credible.  He has
not mitigated the Government’s security concerns.
Applicant does not assert error on the part of the Judge.  He does state that he did not fully
understand the consequences of not requesting a hearing.  He states that he has now consulted legal
counsel and believes that he can more fully and adequately present his case at a live and in-person
hearing.  The Board construes Applicant’s assertions as raising the question of whether he was
denied certain procedural rights and information before making his choice to have his case decided
on the written record.  For the reasons that follow, Applicant has not established that his procedural
due process rights were violated.
Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take
timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-
15235 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 3, 2008).  If they fail to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their
rights, that failure to act does not constitute a denial of their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-
19896 at 6 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2003).  The record reveals that upon his receipt of the SOR, Applicant
was provided a form wherein the choice between a hearing and a determination on the written record
was clearly indicated.  In addition, he was provided a copy of the Directive, which describes
3
procedures both for hearings and for decisions on the written record.  Ascertaining the merits for his
situation of choosing one option over the other was the responsibility of Applicant.  There is no
evidence that Applicant was influenced in his choice by the Government or that he was hindered by
the Government in any way from choosing freely between the available options.  Thus, there is no
evidence that Applicant’s procedural due process rights were violated.  Given this, there is no basis
to grant Applicant the relief he seeks, namely that the Judge’s decision be rescinded, and that he be
allowed to present his case in an in-person hearing.    
Order
The decision of the Judge 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