KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A review of the record indicates Applicant was provided with the procedural rights set
forth in Executive Order 10865 and the DOD Directive 5220.6.  Adverse decision affirmed.       
CASE NO: 12-12192.a1
DATE: 07/13/2016
DATE: July 13, 2016  
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-12192
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
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) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On May 4, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had 25 delinquent debts totaling about $48,000.  Seven of
those debts were student loans totaling about $37,000.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on
five of the student loans and against him on the remaining debts. 
In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant claimed in his SOR response that debts were
paid in 2012 and stated, “I would request more time to provide official settlement letter from creditor
and to have my credit report updated to reflect status.”  Decision at 3.  Although it was unclear
whether Applicant was provided additional time to respond to the SOR, the Judge pointed out that
Applicant submitted his SOR response in June 2015 and received Department Counsel’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM) in September 2015.  Applicant was given 30 days from receipt of the
FORM to review the file, submit objections, and provide additional information that he wished to
be considered.  He did not submit a response to the FORM.  In his analysis, the Judge underscored
that Applicant had more than three additional months after answering to the SOR to provide
documents in response to the FORM, but did not do so.  A review of the record indicates Applicant
was provided with the procedural rights set forth in Executive Order 10865 and the Directive,
including an opportunity to respond to the FORM.       
In his appeal brief, Applicant presented documents from creditors showing various debts
were resolved.  These documents constitute new evidence that the Board can neither receive nor
consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant has not shown that the Judge committed any harmful
error.  The Judge’s decision is sustainable on the record. 
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin          
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy          
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board