KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-00949.a1
DATE: 07/06/2016
DATE: July 6, 2016
In Re:
----------.
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00949
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
August 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
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On April 14, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 the Judge failed to consider all of
the evidence and whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with
the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1983, served 21 years of active duty, and was
honorably discharged in 2004.  Applicant has been employed by his current employer since 2004. 
During the period 2005 through 2014 Applicant accumulated delinquent debts including a $19,000
debt to the IRS for past due federal taxes, three judgments against him exceeding $31,000, and 13
consumer debts exceeding $22,000.  Applicant estimates his current balance on the federal taxes he
owes to be $12,230, but provides no documentation to corroborate his claim.  Applicant claims that
two of the three judgments were satisfied by wage garnishment and that the third judgment was
partially satisfied by voluntary monthly payments. However, he offers no documentation to support
the satisfaction of these judgments.  Applicant provided no evidence to verify any of his claimed
payments made to the 13 consumer debts. Applicant attributed many of his financial problems to
legal gambling during the period 2005 to 2014.  Before curtailing his gambling in 2014, Applicant
estimated that he gambled four days per week.  Applicant incurred an estimated $75,000 in gambling
losses, lost his home due to gambling, and unsuccessfully attended Gamblers Anonymous. 
Applicant continues to gamble on occasion.  Applicant did not offer any character references on his
behalf, nor did he provide any performance evaluations or evidence of community and civic
contributions.  Applicant did not respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) submitted by the
Government in this case.    
The Judge’s Analysis   
Applicants’ delinquent debts are attributable in most part to gambling.  While Applicant’s
gambling likely contributed to his financial situation, gambling losses cannot be considered
extenuating when evaluating an applicant’s clearance worthiness.  Applicant has not provided any
evidence of resolution of his delinquent debts.  Therefore, more time is needed to make conclusions
that Applicant’s financial situation is sufficiently stabilized to permit his access to classified
information.  
Discussion
In his appeal, Applicant states that he believes he has approximately $55,000 to $60,000 less
debt than what was set forth in the SOR.  He states that he is submitting updated responses to the
SOR.  He also includes bank statements he contends show payments of his debts and screen shot
print-outs from the county court reflecting payment and satisfaction of the judgments against him. 
2
He also includes his performance reports dating back to 2012.  He requests that the Board consider
the fact that he has held a security clearance since 1983 without any security incidents and that he
served his country honorably for over 21 years in the Air Force.
The Judge did consider Applicant’s work history including his honorable service in the
military.  As to the updated information Applicant is now providing in response to the SOR, and
other evidence not contained in the record below, we note that Applicant was given multiple
opportunities to provide such documentary support during the security clearance process.  The
Directive does not specify the quantum of evidence that applicants should provide, although, in
adjudications on the written record, it affords them with an opportunity to submit any and all
documentary evidence they believe would assist in presenting their cases.  In this case, Applicant
was advised of his right to submit evidence, by means of the FORM, the DOHA cover letter that
accompanied it, and the copy of the Directive that DOHA sent him.  See, e.g., DOHA Cover Letter,
dated December 30, 2015.  However, Applicant did not respond to the FORM.  In addition,
Applicant did not provide documentation to support his claims and assertions made in his Answer
to the SOR.  Further, as early as May 20, 2014, the Government advised the Applicant that
additional information was needed from him to determine his eligibility for a security clearance by
propounding  interrogatories requesting detailed information about the status of his delinquencies. 
Although Applicant responded to the interrogatories, he did not submit any supporting
documentation reflecting payment or resolution of the debts.  Applicant’s appeal brief contains
assertions and attachments that were not part of the record below.  The Board may not consider such
new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.    
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on the record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of 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: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
3
  Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom       
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4