KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant did not present any information to show that his debts arose from
circumstances outside his control or that the had acted responsibly in regard to them.  He
presented no evidence of financial counseling, budgeting, or evidence that his financial problems
are under control. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-00141.a1
DATE: 03/09/2018
DATE: March 09, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-00141
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
10, 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 November 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White 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
Applicant retired as an E-6 from the military and has worked overseas for a Defense
contractor since early 2011.  He has held a clearance since 1992.  Applicant’s SOR lists several
delinquent debts, for such things as an unpaid balance on a consumer loan, Federal taxes, automobile
repossessions, a credit card, an apartment lease, and a past-due debt resulting from a first mortgage
on a home that he purchased in 2015.  The Judge found that Applicant had not made regular
mortgage payments since late 2015.  Applicant entered into a loan modification agreement  with his
lender but provided no proof that he had made any payments.  Applicant and his wife filed for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2008, but it was dismissed in 2010 due to failure to make payments.  The
couple filed again in January and June 2010 but failed to make payments under those proceedings
as well.  The Judge noted that Applicant had not presented evidence of financial counseling, of a
budget, or of his ability to pay his delinquent debts.
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant did not present any information to show that his debts arose from circumstances
outside his control or that the had acted responsibly in regard to them.  He presented no evidence
of financial counseling, budgeting, or evidence that his financial problems are under control.  The
Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems are likely to recur, noting, among other things,
additional delinquencies in a credit report generated after the date of his SOR.
Discussion
Applicant’s appeal includes material from outside the record, including documents that post-
date the Judge’s decision.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Applicant cites to evidence that he has paid some debts, that his bankruptcy filings were done upon
the advice of an attorney, and that he purchased only one home in 2015, although the term “first
mortgage” might imply that he had bought two.  Applicant has not shown that the Judge failed to
consider all of the evidence.  Neither has he shown 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).  To the extent that Applicant is challenging the Judge’s findings about his efforts at
2
debt resolution, we conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by
substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04724 at 3 (App.  Bd. Aug. 18, 2017).  
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision, particularly his comments about a paucity of mitigating evidence.  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 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
  
3