KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In a DOHA proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion that he should
have a favorable decision.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  In this case, Applicant received a copy of the
File of Relevant Material (FORM) and cover letter that accompanied it, advised him of his right
to submit a documentary response.  In fact, the FORM cited to lacunae in the record evidence
concerning steps Applicant had taken to address his debts.  This was sufficient to have apprised
Applicant of the kind of evidence that he could submit, such as debt payment, current financial
stability, etc.  However, Applicant submitted nothing. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01020.a1
DATE: 01/13/2017
DATE: January 13, 2017
In Re:
-------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01020
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
September 18, 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 decisions
on the written record.  On November 1, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 is separated from his wife.  The couple have two children.  Applicant is a high
school graduate who has earned some college credits.  He served in the military from 2002 through
2007.  After leaving active duty he entered the Reserves but quit before completing his enlistment. 
Between 2010 and 2015, Applicant incurred nearly $12,000 in delinquent debt.  He attributed this
debt to the family living on one income while his wife attended college.  In addition, both his wife
and one of his children had medical problems.
Applicant has maintained his own finances since separating from his wife.  He has resolved
three of the SOR allegations and is working to repay his debts.  He hopes to have all of his debts
paid by the end of 2016.  He provided no evidence, however, of any debt payment since October
2015.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s financial problems were affected by circumstances that
were outside his control.  However, citing to his finding that Applicant had provided no evidence
of debt payment since October 2015, he concluded that Applicant had not shown responsible action. 
He also concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.  He
stated that Applicant had not provided sufficient documentary evidence of his progress at debt
resolution.  
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  He cites to his evidence at debt resolution, such as his having cashed out a
retirement account.  He also contends that he currently lives within his means.  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).  
2
In a DOHA proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion that he should have a
favorable decision.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  In this case, Applicant received a copy of the File of
Relevant Material (FORM) on January 19, 2016.  The FORM, as well as the DOHA cover letter that
accompanied it, advised him of his right to submit a documentary response.  In fact, the FORM cited
to lacunae in the record evidence concerning steps Applicant had taken to address his debts.  This
was sufficient to have apprised Applicant of the kind of evidence that he could submit, such as debt
payment, current financial stability, etc.  However, Applicant submitted nothing.  Decision at 2.  The
Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion is sustainable.
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.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
 
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. 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
3