KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline B
DIGEST: Applicant’s narrative statement and credit report constitute new evidence that the
Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. Applicant has failed to assert that the Judge
committed any harmful error in his analysis of the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06811.a1
DATE: 06/23/2017
DATE: June 23, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-06811
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Jeremy A. Robinson, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
April 20, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline B
(Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 17, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the Guideline B allegation and on three of the five
delinquent debts alleged under Guideline F.  No issues regarding those favorable findings have been
raised on appeal.  
The Judge found against Applicant on a charged-off account of about $25,000 and a state
tax lien of about $575.  Applicant admitted both of those allegations in responding to the SOR.  In
the appeal brief, Applicant contends that the amount of the larger debt is in error.  In support of that
argument, he presents a narrative statement and credit report that were not previously presented to
the Judge.  This narrative statement and credit report constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board
can neither receive nor consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.   Applicant has failed to assert that the Judge
committed any harmful error in his analysis of the record evidence.
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