KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has been telling the Government since 2005, for at least twelve years, that
he was working to resolve his indebtedness.  Over the years, he obviously did little to nothing
towards his delinquent debts.  Applicant has not submitted any compelling evidence that he has
established a meaningful track record of repayment, or that he had a basis to dispute the
legitimacy of any of his delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-03994.a1
DATE: 04/27/2018
DATE: April 27, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03994
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
January 10, 2017, 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 February 20, 2018, after considering the record, 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 18 delinquent debts totaling about $10,000.  In his
response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each debt.  In her analysis, the Judge stated:
Applicant has been telling the Government since 2005, for at least twelve years, that
he was working to resolve his indebtedness.  Over the years, he obviously did little
to nothing towards his delinquent debts.  In response to the FORM  [File of Relevant
Material] dated June 2017, Applicant submitted a letter and a Statement of Payment
and Records, showing that he has finally hired a debt resolution company to assist
him in resolving this indebtedness.  It also shows that many of the creditors listed in
the SOR are included in the repayment plan.  However, it also shows that Applicant
recently started the program, as the debt amounts still remain close to what was
originally owed.  At this point, Applicant has not submitted any compelling evidence
that he has established a meaningful track record of repayment, or that he had a basis
to dispute the legitimacy of any of his delinquent debts.1
In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s material findings or
conclusions.  In fact, he stated that he does “not question the previous judgment[.]”  Appeal Brief
at 1.  He asks that his case be reconsidered and highlights his efforts to resolve his debts, including
his making payments under the debt repayment plan.  To the extent that he is arguing that the Judge
mis-weighed the evidence, his arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the
evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016).  
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.”
1 Decision at 7.  
2
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