KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief includes evidence from outside the record, which we cannot
consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  She cites to her various claims of debt payment and to other
matters in the record.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all
of the evidence in the record. .  Neither has she shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a
manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Directive does not permit us to
consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05382.a1
DATE: 01/25/2017
DATE: January 25, 2017
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05382
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
December 15, 2014, 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 6 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 Defense contractor since 2001 and has held a clearance since
then.  Her SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, such as student loans, a car loan, medical accounts,
a debt to an on-line university, etc.  Applicant did not provide documentation regarding the
circumstances underlying her debts and/or her efforts to resolve them.  Though Applicant provided
no particular reason that she fell into debt, the Judge surmised that her problems likely resulted from
a leave of absence from her job in late 2010.  He found that Applicant’s information about her
income, expenses, etc, did not appear to be correct, in that they contained computational errors. 
Applicant has never had financial counseling.
The Judges’ Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to her
debts.  He stated that her only documented payments were a garnishment action for one of the debts
and a single payment to a bank, despite Applicant’s continued employment since 2001.  He stated
that her having held a clearance for many years should have put her on notice of the importance that
the Government attaches to financial responsibility.  Indeed, Applicant’s clearance interview,
conducted in 2011, addressed her delinquent debt, from which she should have recognized her duty
to put her financial house in order.
Discussion
    
Applicant’s brief includes evidence from outside the record, which we cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  She cites to her various claims of debt payment and to other matters in the
record.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in
the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016).  Neither has she
shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 27, 2016).  Applicant notes that her
continued employed is contingent upon retention of her clearance.  The Directive does not permit
2
us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02619 at 3 (App.
Bd. Apr. 7, 2016).
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
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.”
3
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
4