KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement,
debt payment plan, and portions of credit reports. The Appeal Board cannot consider new
evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07663.a1
DATE: 08/17/2017
DATE: August 17, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07663
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 May
5, 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 31, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for
a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge concluded that Applicant has numerous debts that are unresolved.  Applicant
attributed her financial problems to a chronic medical problem, medical expenses incurred by her
son, and the absence of health insurance.  After 2010, she acquired health insurance and had a more
stable work history; however, she did not begin making payments on her medical debts until a
judgment was entered against her in 2013.  She stated that she is creating a plan to pay other 
delinquent debts, but there is no evidence the plan has been implemented or any of the remaining
debts are being paid or resolved. 
Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement, debt
payment plan, and portions of credit reports.  The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on
appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.   
In her appeal brief, Applicant submitted an explanation about her financial problems and the
efforts she has taken to resolve them.  Her arguments , however, are neither enough to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence nor sufficient to show that the
Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017).   
Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s 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: William S. Fields 
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy    
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board