KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s brief includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision.  We cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant reiterates some of the
information that he had provided earlier, as in his Response to the SOR, in which he claims that
he is resolving his large debt and denies owing the others.  The Judge discussed information that
Applicant submitted during the course of his clearance adjudication.  Applicant’s has not shown
that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-04225.a1
DATE: 02/17/2017
DATE: February 17, 2017
In Re:
---------. 
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04225
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 4, 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 November 4, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul 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 weighed the evidence in
a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR lists five delinquent debts.  One, for over $23,000, is owed to the
Department of Education.  Applicant signed a rehabilitation agreement promising to make nine
monthly payments of $212.  Applicant provided a document showing three payments of $50. 
Applicant’s evidence does not support his contention that he has begun the process of resolving this
debt.  Other debts consist of a $13,000 collection account, two charged-off accounts of about $5,000
each, and a $116 medical debt.  Applicant denied owing these debts, except for the medical one,
which he did not address in his Response to the SOR.  He sent dispute forms to the creditor holding
the two charge-off accounts, although his credit reports establish that he owes them.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions were entitled to full application. 
He stated that Applicant had presented no evidence to show that he had initiated good-faith efforts
to resolve his debts, nor had he shown that his financial situation is stable.  
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision.  We cannot
consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant reiterates some of the information
that he had provided earlier, as in his Response to the SOR, in which he claims that he is resolving
his large debt and denies owing the others.  The Judge discussed information that Applicant
submitted during the course of his clearance adjudication.  Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to show
that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
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
2
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