KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Much of Applicant’s appeal brief consists of information that was not presented to the
Judge for consideration.  Based on that information, Applicant makes various arguments,
including that some of her debts have been resolved or removed from her credit reports. 
However, such information presented for the first time on appeal constitutes new evidence that
the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01869.a1
DATE: 01/16/2018
DATE: January 16, 2018
In Re:
----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01869
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
September 3, 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 23, 2017, after considering the record, 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 issue on appeal:  whether the Judge’s unfavorable decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The SOR alleged 17 delinquent debts totaling about $10,800.  The Judge found in favor of
Applicant on some debts and against her on others.
Much of Applicant’s appeal brief consists of information that was not previously presented
to the Judge for consideration.  This includes a narrative statement, character reference letter, credit
reports, documents from creditors, and other matters.  Based on that information, Applicant makes
various arguments, including that some of her debts have been resolved or removed from her credit
reports.  However, such information presented for the first time on appeal constitutes new evidence
that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
In her appeal brief, Applicant claims that she provided documentation to the Judge in her
response to the SOR showing alleged medical debts were resolved.  She did provide a document 
from one of her creditors showing a medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.q) was resolved, and the Judge found
in favor of her on that debt.  For other medical debts, she made representations that debts were paid,
a payment arrangement was established, or the creditor could not locate a debt.  She, however, did
not provide documentation corroborating those claims; specifically, she provided no proof that she
paid certain debts or made payments under the payment arrangement.  The Appeal Board has
previously stated that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation
showing the resolution of individual debts.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul.
30, 2008).  We find no error in the Judge’s findings regarding the medical debts.  
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan.
8, 2016).
Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error.  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: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3