KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge did not investigate whether child support payments
were being taken from of his weekly income.  The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as
an investigator for either party. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01373.a1
DATE: 03/09/2018
DATE: March 09, 2018
In Re:
------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01373
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 30, 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 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 six delinquent debts totaling about $11,400.  Applicant
disputed two alleged telecommunications debts, one for less than $100 and the other for about
$1,300, but provided no documentation of those disputes.  He admitted the other alleged debts,
including two child support accounts placed for collection.  He provided a printout record showing
child support payments from November 2016 to January 2017.  The child support accounts  were
opened in 1996 and 1999 and have been delinquent since 2013.  “He also suffered a stroke during
a prolonged period of unemployment.  Applicant did not provide information about the financial
impacts of his medical problem or about his efforts to address his debts.”  Decision at 3.  
In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that he is paying his child support obligation as well
as his other bills.  He also provided a pay stub for December 2017 that shows he has two
attachments  from his pay, presumably for the child support payments.  The pay stub constitutes new
evidence that the Appeal Board may not consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.1.29.  He also contends that the
Judge did not investigate whether child support payments were being taken from of his weekly
income.  The Directive does not authorize a Judge to act as an investigator for either party.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 11-06659 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 22, 2012).  Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish
the Judge committed any 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 Ra’anan  
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
2
Signed: William S. Fields  
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy      
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3