KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s findings of fact or in the
decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
the decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-06841.a1
DATE: 08/04/2017
DATE: August 4, 2017    
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-06841
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
February 26, 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 May 18, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his findings of
fact and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with
the following, we affirm.
The SOR alleged six delinquent debts totaling over $25,000.  In her response to the SOR,
Applicant admitted five of the debts and denied the remaining debt as being a duplicate.  The Judge
found in favor of Applicant on the duplicate debt and against her on the other debts.  He noted she
produced no documents to substantiate her efforts to settle or dispute the debts.  
Applicant’s appeal brief includes matters, such as character reference letters and a marital
separation agreement, that were not presented to the Judge for consideration.  Those matters
constitute new evidence that Appeal Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
In the appeal brief, Applicant indicated that she wished “to address some issues that may
have been misrepresented in the Findings of Fact” (Appeal Brief at 1) and proceeded to state that
she did not knowingly leave out information on her security clearance application (SCA).  We note
that the Judge correctly stated in the findings of fact that Applicant did not disclose her delinquent
debts in her SCA, but she did disclose that she encountered financial problems as a result of her
divorce and second husband’s unemployment.  Applicant also pointed out that her children and
stepchildren were not grown adults at the time of her second marriage.  However, the Judge did not
make a finding of that nature.  He merely found that she and her husband had six adult children at
the time of the decision.  Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s findings of
fact or in the decision.  
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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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