KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:   Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he actually mailed anything to
DOHA in response to the FORM or that he was otherwise denied the due process afforded by the
Directive.  The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation
for the decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-03712.a1
DATE: 01/11/2018
DATE: January 11, 2018
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03712
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
January 11, 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 25, 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 he 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’s SOR alleges a $24,600 past-due mortgage loan that was in foreclosure and two
other delinquent debts that together total $239.  There is little evidence to establish the cause of
Applicant’s financial problems other than his 2010 divorce.  In his SOR response he claimed that
he was not aware of the two smaller debts, although he stated that he had arranged to pay them.  The
Judge noted that, although Applicant was placed on notice by means of the File of Relevant Material
(FORM) that he had not mitigated the concerns raised by his debts, he provided nothing in response. 
Accordingly, the Judge stated that he could not find that Applicant had acted responsibly in regard
to his financial problems or made a good-faith effort to pay his debts.
Discussion
Applicant contends that he mailed his response to the FORM in June 2017.  He states that
DOHA received his receipt acknowledgment but not his response, as a result of which the Judge
issued his Decision without having considered all of the evidence.  Applicant’s brief contains new
evidence, which we generally cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  However, we will consider new
evidence insofar as it pertains to threshold issues such as jurisdiction or due process.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).  In resolving cases in which applicants claim to
have submitted documents that were not received, we generally examine the record and the briefs
to see whether there is any support for this claim.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08068 at 2 (App. Bd.
Sep. 8, 2017).  
In the case before us, as Department Counsel observes in his Reply Brief, Applicant has
provided no Postal Service receipt, copy of an email, or other evidence to buttress the contentions
in his Appeal Brief.  Reply Brief at 5.  Neither does he identify nor describe any evidence that he
contends that he submitted.  Under the facts of this case, Applicant has not made a prima facie
showing that he actually mailed anything to DOHA in response to the FORM or that he was
otherwise denied the due process afforded by the Directive.  See, e.g, ISCR Case No. 14-00967 at
2 (App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2015).  Although pro se applicants are not held to the standards of lawyers, they
are expected to take reasonable steps to preserve their rights.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08255
at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 22, 2017).  We resolve this allegation adversely to Applicant.
The balance of Applicant’s brief is a challenge to the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. 
Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Neither has he rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered
all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03219 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 15, 2017).
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