KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends the Judge committed factual and legal errors.  Some of his
arguments are based on representations that are not in that record.  Those representations
constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01562.a1
DATE: 03/13/2018
DATE: March 13, 2018    
In Re:
----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01562
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 May
24, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and 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 December 8, 2017, after considering the
record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶
E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge committed factual and
legal errors in her decision.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the decision.  The Judge’s
favorable findings under Guideline B are not discussed further because they have not been raised
as an issue on appeal.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis 
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations that he had a judgment entered against him for about
$81,000 in 2012 and another entered against him for about $5,000 in 2014.  He attributed his
financial problems to purchasing a second home in 2006 without first selling his first home.  He
could not pay both mortgages.  He encounter problems with renters of the first home and a bank’s
refusal to refinance a loan.  He and his wife also lost a child during her pregnancy.  His wages were
garnished, but no details are contained in the record.   
Applicant lost the first home in 2008.  The judgments are arguably due to circumstances
beyond his control, but he has not resolved the large judgment and is not making any payments
towards it.  He is trying to resolve the other judgment, but there is no payment plan in place to
resolve it.  
Discussion
Applicant contends the Judge committed factual and legal errors.  Some of his arguments are
based on representations that are not in that record.  Those representations constitute new evidence
that the Appeal Board cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Based upon our review, the Judge’s
material findings “are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”  See,
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. The balance of his arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show 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 failed to establish that 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.”
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. 
 
Signed: Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
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