KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:  Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-00778.a1
DATE:  04/05/2017
DATE: April 5, 2017
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00778
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
October 30, 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 hearing. 
On January 23, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge David M. White 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’s SOR alleges twelve delinquent debts.  They are substantiated by Applicant’s
admissions to the SOR and by the contents of his credit reports.  One of the allegations, a Federal
tax lien for about $2,280, had grown to nearly $39,000 by the time of his most recent credit report. 
Applicant presented no evidence that he had addressed his debts.  He submitted an account statement
regarding a medical debt, but the account number does not match any of those contained in the SOR. 
He also submitted an offer in compromise to the IRS.  However, it is unsigned, and there is no
indication that it had actually been submitted for approval.  Moreover, this document states that
Applicant’s monthly expenditures exceed his income.  The Judge found that Applicant had not
sought financial counseling and “essentially did nothing to pursue resolution of any of his alleged
delinquencies since receiving his SOR.”  Decision at 3.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that there is no evidence that Applicant’s delinquencies are due to causes
outside his control or that he has acted responsibly in regard to them.  Though noting Applicant’s
years of service to the U.S., the Judge stated that Applicant’s history of financial irresponsibility
indicates that his problems are more likely to get worse than better.  
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that he had done little if anything to resolve his
debts.  He cites to the medical account statement and the offer in compromise as evidence that he
is attempting to address his financial problems.  He advises that he had not received statements
regarding other medical debts during the time that the Judge allotted.  He contends that he is doing
everything he can to get his financial house in order.  However, the Judge’s treatment of the cited
documents is consistent with the record that was before him.  Applicant has not shown that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017).  Even if the evidence that Applicant cited in his
appeal brief demonstrates some movement toward financial responsibility, it does not undermine
the Judge’s analysis of Applicant’s significant history of delinquent debt, in particular his growing
debt to the IRS. 
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 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