KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge left the record open for over three weeks. The Judge found that Applicant
ultimately submitted nothing. Although Applicant has provided us with documents that she
claimed she submitted, she did not supply any evidence to show that she either mailed the
documents or submitted them electronically. We resolve this issue adversely to Applicant.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-05097.a1
DATE: 09/26/2017
DATE: September 26, 2017
In Re:
---------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-05097
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 29, 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 hearing. 
On July 19, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine 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 she submitted evidence that was
not entered into the record; whether the Judge’s findings of fact contained errors; and whether the
Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked for a Defense contractor since 2002.  She previously worked as a
civilian employee of one of the military services.  She has held a security clearance since the 1980s.
Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts for medical accounts; four accounts resulting
from apartment rental agreements; a federal tax lien for a little over $29,000; two state tax liens; a
student loan; an automobile repossession; and two other charged-off/collection accounts.  The
apartment debts resulted from late payments and from Applicant’s having terminated a lease early
in order to care for her ailing father.  She attributed her tax problems to inadequate withholding by
her employer.  She hired a firm to assist in resolving her tax problems and submitted a letter from
the firm stating that they expected to receive IRS approval of a repayment plan.  At the hearing,
Applicant confirmed that the IRS had not yet acted on the proposed plan.  Applicant entered into a
rehabilitation agreement to pay $181 a month toward satisfaction of the student loan.  In addition
to her delinquent debts, Applicant’s SOR alleges a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in 2005 and her
misuse of a company-provided travel card two years later.  She was found guilty of credit card fraud
in 1984 and for writing a bad check in 1997.
Applicant attributed her problems to underemployment and to financial assistance that she
provides to her adult children.  She also experienced a salary reduction in 2013 and 2014 due to
contracting issues.  She has received some credit counseling from her current employer, based upon
which she created a spreadsheet to assist in managing her finances.  Although Applicant testified
that her financial condition was improving, the Judge noted two additional collection debts that were
not alleged in the SOR.  Applicant took a cruise in 2014 and purchased a new car a year later.  She
makes about $3,600 a month and uses any funds left over after expenses to pay down debt.  Though
noting Applicant’s claims of debt reduction, the Judge found that she did not provide corroborating
evidence.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied to Applicant’s
delinquent debts.  For example, though noting circumstances outside her control that affected her
financial problems, the Judge stated that Applicant did not demonstrate responsible action in regard
to them.  She concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated a good-faith effort to pay her debts or
to show that her financial problems are under control, citing to a paucity of corroborating evidence. 
The Judge did resolve some of the allegations in Applicant’s favor, including a state tax lien for
nearly $6,000 and the two convictions from the 1980s and 1990s.  However, for the balance of the
allegations, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion as to
mitigation.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that she submitted documentation to the Judge that was not considered. 
She has attached to her brief documents that she claims that she submitted.  Her arguments include
matters from outside the record, which we generally are not permitted to consider.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon threshold issues such as
jurisdiction or due process.  
At the close of the hearing, the Judge left the record open for over three weeks to enable
Applicant to submit additional documentary evidence.  Tr. at 88.  At Applicant’s request, the Judge
extended the deadline for submission of evidence for an additional six weeks.  Email from Judge to
Applicant, dated March 20, 2017.  However, the Judge found that Applicant ultimately submitted
nothing.  Decision at 2; Email from Department Counsel to Judge, dated July 17, 2017.  Although
Applicant has provided us with documents that she claimed she submitted, she did not supply any
evidence to show that she either mailed the documents or submitted them electronically.  Based on
the record before us, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that she
actually submitted documentary evidence that was not received by the Judge.  We resolve this issue
adversely to Applicant.
Applicant argues that she had resolved her debts.  She states that she did not owe four debts
resulting from her rental agreement but only one.  To the extent that Applicant is contending that
the Judge’s findings contained errors, we conclude that the Judge’s material findings are supported
by  “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See ISCR Case No.
14-04435 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017).  Applicant has not cited to any harmful error in the Judge’s
findings of fact.
Applicant cites to favorable evidence, such as her having held a clearance for many years
without incident or concern and her effort to arrive at a payment plan with the IRS.  Applicant’s
arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in
the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  Applicant’s remaining
arguments constitute, in effect, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.  However,
such a disagreement is not 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. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb.
14, 2017).  Among other things, Applicant’s tax delinquencies raise a reasonable concern that she
has trouble following governmental rules and regulations.  See, e.g., ISCR Case 14-06808 at 2 (App.
Bd. Nov. 23, 2016).  Even if Applicant had demonstrated that she had resolved many of her
delinquent debts, the Judge could still consider the circumstances underlying those debts for what
they may reveal about her judgment and reliability.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02394 at 3-4 (App.
Bd. Aug. 17, 2015).  
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