KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant raises the issue of the absence of a payment agreement that was discussed in
the Judge’s original decision.  That issue was resolved by remanding the first decision so the
Judge could consider the missing documents. Applicant also offers explanations about his debts
that are not contained in the record and constitute new evidence. The Board cannot consider new
evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01238.a2
DATE: 02/23/2018
DATE: February 23, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01238
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
20, 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 July 14, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
On September 26, 2017, we remanded the case.  On October 26, 2017, the Judge issued a
Decision on Remand, denying Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant again
appealed pursuant to the Directive.
Applicant raised the following issue in his latest appeal:  whether the Judge’s adverse
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the
Judge’s Decision on Remand.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had two judgments against him totaling about $7,600, a
delinquent medical debt for $148, and a charged-off debt for about $6,500.  In the original decision,
the Judge found for Applicant on the charged-off debt because he was only an authorized user of that
account and against him on the other debts.  The Judge noted that Applicant claimed he had a
payment agreement for the two judgments, but did not provide any documents supporting that claim. 
Although Applicant claimed the medical debt was opened without his knowledge, the Judge noted
that Applicant did not dispute the debt with the creditor or credit bureaus.  
We remanded the original decision to the Judge because Applicant claimed he submitted
documents  regarding a payment agreement for the two judgments with his SOR answer.  In the
Decision on Remand, the Judge stated that he reopened the record to provide Applicant an
opportunity to submit any documents that he claimed to have submitted with his SOR answer. 
Applicant responded by submitting a packet of documents, including a payment agreement
(unsigned by Applicant or his spouse) for the two judgments, which the Judge marked and entered
into the record.  The Judge indicated that he assumed Applicant signed the payment agreement, but
also noted that Applicant did not submit any documentary evidence of payments under the plan.  The
Judge again denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance by essentially adhering to his
analysis of the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the original decision.         
In his latest appeal brief, Applicant again raises the issue of the absence of the payment
agreement as a reason for the Judge’s original adverse decision.  This issue, however, was resolved
by remanding the original decision so that the Judge could consider the missing documents.
Applicant also contends that he did not provide proof of payments under the payment plan
because he made those payments by certified check and only had a few emails documenting those
payments.  He further explained that he encountered serious medical problems that limited his ability
to make the payments for about four months.  Soon after he returned to work, he requested
2
reinstatement of the payment plan, but discovered the creditor had taken action to garnish his pay,
and he was attempting to modify the amount of the monthly garnishment.  His explanation about
these matters are not contained in the record and constitute new evidence that the Board cannot
consider on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.        
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors.  Applicant has failed to
establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.  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.”
3
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
 
    
  
4