KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings about the delinquent debts were based on substantial
evidence, including Applicant’s admissions, his security clearance application, and credit
reports. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-00019.a1
DATE: 05/11/2017
DATE: May 11, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00019
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 15, 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 February 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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.1
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The SOR lists 17 delinquent debts totaling about $19,000.  In his Answer to the SOR,
Applicant admitted most of the delinquent debts.  Record evidence establishes two of the alleged
debts are duplicates and two have been paid.  No evidence has been submitted showing the
remaining debts have been satisfied.  Applicant provided no documentation of his current financial
status, budget, financial counseling, or other mitigation efforts.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that no mitigation is appropriate.  Besides the two duplicate debts and
two paid debts, the other debts remain unresolved.  Applicant’s efforts are inadequate to demonstrate
that his financial situation is under control, and he is willing and able to resolve his delinquent debts. 
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes documents that post-date the Judge’s decision.  We cannot
consider such new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Applicant contends that the information in the SOR is inaccurate and the Judge based his
decision on non-factual information.  We do not find this argument persuasive.  The Judge’s material
findings about the delinquent debts were based on substantial evidence, including Applicant’s
admissions, his security clearance application, and credit reports.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-
02154 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 25, 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.”
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.    
1 While the case was pending before the Board, a second brief arrived from Applicant.  The parties are only
entitled to one brief.  The Board’s decision relies on the first brief we received.
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