KEYWORD:  Guideline F; Guideline E
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: 17-00264.a1
DATE: 02/05/2018
DATE:  February 5, 2018
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00264
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
March 23, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On November 17, 2017, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had 13 delinquent debts totaling about $48,000 and that he
falsified his responses on a security clearance application (SCA) by failing to disclose information
about his financial problems.  In his Responses to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR
allegations.  He did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material
(FORM).  The Judge found that Applicant indicated an intent to resolve his delinquent debts, but
failed to establish a track record of debt resolution and failed to provide sufficient corroborating
documentation.  Regarding the falsification allegations, the Judge noted that Applicant provided no
explanation as to why he did not reveal his delinquent indebtedness on the SCA.
In his appeal brief, Applicant provides matters that were not previously presented to the
Judge for consideration, including certain representations about the status of the debts and a letter
from an attorney that post-dates the Judge’s decision.  Such matters constitute new evidence that the
Appeal Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.     
In his brief, Applicant resubmitted copies of letters from creditors that he previously
provided in his Response to the SOR.  To the extent that he is arguing the Judge did not consider
record evidence or mis-weighted the evidence, he 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.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00844
at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2017).  To the extent that he is arguing the Judge erred in her findings of fact,
any such error was harmless, i.e., an error not likely to affect the outcome of the case.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013).  
Applicant contends that he was questioned by an investigator about a student loan, and the
investigator falsified information in his report about Applicant’s statements regarding that debt.  It
is unknown what Applicant is referencing.  The summary of Applicant’s background interview in
the record does not reference a student loan, and none of the SOR allegations appear to pertain to
a student loan.
Applicant also states that any discrepancies in his SCA were unintentional.  In her findings
and analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant admitted the falsification allegations without any 
explanation as to why he did not disclose his delinquent indebtedness, which included a tax lien and
child support arrearages.  The record contains substantial evidence to support the Judge’s adverse
findings on the falsification allegations.  See, e.g., ISCR Case 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25,
2014).
Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision.  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:  William S. Fields     
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  Charles C. Hale       
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed:  James F. Duffy          
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3