KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST:  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record, nor are they sufficient to show that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 16-01559.a1
DATE: 02/12/2018
DATE:  February 12, 2018
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01559
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 1, 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 Mark Harvey 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 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 listed several delinquent debts, including two tax liens for about $15,000
and $6,600 respectively, four judgments, medical debts, etc.  It also alleged that Applicant failed to
file his tax returns from at least tax year 2010.  He has also failed to file or pay taxes for 2011 and
cannot recall if he filed returns for 2010, 2012, or 2013.  He intends to file his returns for 2014. 
Applicant attributed his financial problems to medical bills, job loss, and reduction in salary. 
Although the File of Relevant Material advised Applicant that there was no corroborating
documentation regarding the SOR allegations, he did not make a response. 
Though noting circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his financial
condition, the Judge cited to Applicant’s failure to provide documentary evidence about his efforts
to resolve the concerns raised in the SOR.  He stated that there is insufficient evidence that
Applicant’s problems are being resolved.
Discussion
Applicant cites to his medical problems and his period of unemployment without health
insurance.  He argues that he is trustworthy and that his eligibility for a clearance should not rest
upon only a difficult portion of his life, thereby contending that the Judge did not properly apply the
whole-person concept.  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor are they sufficient to show that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017).  
Applicant’s brief includes references to matters from outside the record.  We cannot consider
new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Given the record that was before him, we conclude that the Judge did not err in his whole-
person analysis, in that he considered the totality of the record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
15-03592 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 14, 2017).  In a DOHA proceeding, it is the applicant’s responsibility
to present evidence in mitigation, extenuation, explanation, etc.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  Applicant was
placed upon sufficient notice that the record as it stood lacked documentary evidence to show that
the allegations in the SOR were being resolved, yet he submitted nothing.  The Judge’s conclusion
that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation is supportable.
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 Y. Ra’anan       
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed:  James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  Charles C. Hale             
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board