KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge made findings of fact about much of the record evidence that Applicant
discusses in his appeal. His arguments 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. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-00088.a1
DATE: 09/11/2017
DATE: September 11, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00088
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 June 
15, 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 June 19, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts totaling about $69,000.   These
included a mortgage account past due approximately $65,000.  Applicant attributed his financial
problems to his failed efforts to maintain two homes during a period when his wife was caring for
her ailing sister.  He was also a first-time home buyer who was not experienced with adjustable rate
mortgages and, when his adjusted, he was unable to meet his obligation.  The home was foreclosed. 
He stated he was in the process of discussing damage-mitigation options with a VA representative. 
He claimed that he paid the other alleged debts, but provided no evidence of debt satisfaction.  
In contending that his case “was unfairly categorized as cookie-cutter” and the circumstances
leading to his family’s financial hardship were disregarded, Applicant provides an explanation of 
those circumstances, which includes some information that was not previously submitted to the
Judge for consideration, such as, the foreclosed home was sold by the bank for $90,000 in
September 2016.  The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
We note the Judge made findings of fact about much of the record evidence that Applicant discusses
in his appeal.  His arguments 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: James E. Moody     
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy        
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board