KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: An appealing party must set forth his or her claims of error with specificity. In this
case, Applicant has failed to set forth a claim of error with sufficient specificity to establish a
prima facie case that he was denied due process. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-07366.a1
DATE: 11/8/2017
DATE: November 8, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07366
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
16, 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 August 11, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 seven delinquent debts totaling about $73,000.  The
Judge found against Applicant on all of the alleged debts.  In his appeal brief, Applicant states, “It
appears that my supporting documents were not received or misunderstood.”  Appeal Brief at 1.   
In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant offered five exhibits at the hearing that were
admitted into the record without objection.  The five exhibits were marked as AX A though E and
are contained in the record.  In his decision, the Judge cited to each of those exhibits in his findings
of fact.  Applicant’s argument in his appeal brief is neither enough to rebut the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the record evidence nor sufficient to show that the Judge misconstrued the
evidence  or weighed it 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).   
At the hearing held on May 17, 2017, the Judge left the record open until June 7, 2017, for
Applicant to provide additional matters.  Tr. at 121.  In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant
did not provide any documents after the hearing.  Decision at 3, 4, and 7.  In the appeal brief,
Applicant did not claim that the “supporting documents” in question were part of a post-hearing
submission nor did he identify any of those documents.  An appealing party must set forth his or her
claims of error with specificity.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-01306 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 28, 2009). 
In this case, Applicant has failed to set forth a claim of error with sufficient specificity to establish
a prima facie case that he was denied due process.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02933 at 2 (App.
Bd. Sep. 23, 2016).   
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.”
2
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
3