KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In the appeal brief, Applicant argues that he is making specific payments on certain
debts, some debts have been paid, and others do not appear on his credit report.  In support of
those arguments, he presented documents from creditors and a credit report that had not been
previously presented to the Judge.  Those documents and his arguments based on those
documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider.  See Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-02585.a1
DATE: 12/20/2016
DATE: December 20, 2016
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02585
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
November 9,  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 September 29, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $14,000 and that he
failed to file and pay his state and Federal income taxes for 2010.  In his Answer to the SOR,
Applicant admitted  all of the SOR allegations with the exception of one debt of approximately
$900, stated he was making payments on three of the debts, including the Federal tax debt, and
indicated that he paid off the state tax debt.  In the decision, the Judge found that Applicant failed
to submit documentation showing payments on any of the alleged debts.  It is reasonable for Judges
to expect applicants to present documentation about the satisfaction of individual debts.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2008).
In the appeal brief, Applicant argues that he is making specific payments on certain debts,
some debts have been paid, and others do not appear on his credit report.  In support of those
arguments, he presented documents from creditors and a credit report that had not been previously
presented to the Judge.  Those documents and his arguments based on those documents constitute
new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Applicant has failed to identify any harmful error.  The Judge examined the relevant
evidence 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 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; James E. Moody        
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy           
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board