KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief includes information that was not presented to the Judge for
consideration. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. The balance of Applicant’s
arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not
sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious,
and contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-04764.a1
DATE: 06/01/2017
DATE: June 1, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04764
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
January 8, 2016, 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 15, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom 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 and Analysis
Applicant’s 11 delinquent debts total approximately $42,000.  Some date back to 2010. 
Applicant presented no documentary evidence of any payments toward those debts.  They are
ongoing and unresolved.  Between early 2009 and mid-2014, he attended college and was
unemployed or employed part time; however, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he acted
responsibly to address his delinquent debts or to develop and implement a reasonable debt
repayment plan.  There is neither evidence of credit counseling nor clear indications that his
financial situation is under control.  To the extent that he disputes a collection account and two
delinquent rent accounts, there is no reasonable explanation for the disputes or documentation to
corroborate his claims.   
Discussion
Applicant’s appeal brief includes information that was not presented to the Judge for
consideration.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.1  
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan.
8, 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.”
1 Applicant contends that the information he is providing in his appeal brief is not new evidence, but support
for information previously submitted and articulated in his response to interrogatories.  We do not find this argument
persuasive.  The record does not contain either interrogatories or a response to them.  Even if he is referring to his
Response to the SOR, instead of interrogatories, his argument still does not have merit because much of the information
he is presenting was not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration.     
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.    
Signed: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, 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