KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: As the Judge noted, Applicant did not submit corroborating evidence with her
response to the SOR, nor did she submit a response to the FORM. Applicant states on appeal that
she submitted evidence to the DoD CAF and has attached documents to the Appeal Brief. One of
them is an email to the DoD CAF, which shows that she sent at least one document to them.
However, this document predates the FORM and thus cannot be a response to the FORM. If it
was the response to the SOR, that is already in the record. This submission does not refute the
Judge’s finding that Applicant’s response to the SOR included no corroborating evidence.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01237.a1
DATE: 12/5/2017
DATE: December 5, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01237
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 July
30, 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 October 12, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 was denied due process 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 and Analysis
Applicant works for a Defense contractor.  In 2010, she was charged with felony hit and run,
which resulted in a plea of guilty to reckless driving.  She paid a fine as well as restitution. 
Applicant was unemployed from mid-2012 until late 2013.  Her SOR lists two unpaid judgments
and several other delinquent debts, for such things as a repossessed vehicle, unpaid parking citations,
and other miscellaneous obligations.  Applicant claimed that she did not owe certain debts, had
established payment plans, etc.  She did not provide corroborating evidence in response to the SOR
or to the File of Relevant Material (FORM).  The Judge concluded that there is insufficient evidence
that Applicant’s problems are under control, that she has made good-faith efforts to pay her debts,
or that she otherwise acted responsibly.
Discussion
As the Judge noted, Applicant did not submit corroborating evidence with her response to
the SOR, nor did she submit a response to the FORM.  Applicant states on appeal that she submitted
evidence to the DoD CAF and has attached documents to the Appeal Brief.  One of them is an email
to the DoD CAF, which shows that she sent at least one document to them.  However, this document
predates the FORM and thus cannot be a response to the FORM.  If it was the response to the SOR,
that is already in the record. This submission does not refute the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s
response to the SOR included no corroborating evidence.  
Applicant also attaches a number of documents dated well after the one just discussed.  There
is nothing in her brief or elsewhere in the record that would show that she sent these documents to
the DoD CAF along with her SOR response or to DOHA in response to the FORM.  Indeed, one of
the documents is a credit report that was created two days after the issuance of the Judge’s decision. 
As it stands, Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that she actually submitted documents
that were not included in the record.  Applicant has not established that she was denied an
opportunity to present documents in support of her case or that she was otherwise denied the due
process afforded by the Directive.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05996 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2017).
Applicant claims that she has mitigated the concerns in her case.  However, her arguments
are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor are they
sufficient to undermine the Judge’s weighing of the evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03069
at 3 (App. Bd. July 30, 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 of the Judge 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