KEYWORD:  Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant  failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record and failed to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 16-03378.a1
DATE: 02/05/2018
DATE:  February 5, 2018   
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03378
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
December 21, 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 hearing.
On October 26, 2017, after the hearing, 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 unfavorable decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The SOR alleged nine delinquent debts, including a student loan placed for collection and
a Federal tax lien.  The Judge noted Applicant planned to pay all of his delinquent debts within five
years.  He found in favor of Applicant on some debts and against him on others for which Applicant
provided no documentation of making payments.
In his appeal brief, Applicant states that, shortly after the hearing, he and his wife
experienced a house fire that destroyed their possessions and essentially left them homeless.  This
resulted in him using  money  earmarked to resolve his financial problems for temporary lodging
and other expenses.  Although tragic, this information constitutes new evidence that the Appeal
Board cannot consider on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant contends that the Judge did not take into consideration his “whole body of work”
in denying him a clearance.  The Judge, however, noted that Applicant has served the Federal
Government for 40 years, including about seven years of military service, about seven years of 
Federal civilian service, and many years as an employee of Federal contractors.  Applicant has failed
to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.   See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 16-00844 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2017).  
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence.  His arguments, however, are not sufficient to establish 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.”
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:  James F. Duffy          
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board