KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s material findings or conclusions. 
Rather, she provides a narrative statement explaining the reasons for her financial problems and
discussing her efforts to resolve them.  To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge mis-
weighed the evidence, her arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the
evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 17-01659.a1
DATE: 04/24/2018
DATE: April 24, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-01659
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
30, 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 January 26, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge
Robert J. Kilmartin 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 ten delinquent student loans and four other delinquent
debts.  In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the student loan allegations totaling over
$119,000.  The Judge found against Applicant on the student loans and one other small debt.  He
found in favor of Applicant on the remaining three allegations.  The Judge noted that Applicant had
entered into a repayment agreement for her student loans in July 2017, which was about a month and
a half after the issuance of the SOR.  In his analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant produced
no documentation to convince him that she was making consistent payments on the delinquent
student loans.  He also indicated that he could not conclude that she acted responsibly under the
circumstances, that her financial problems were under control, or that such problems were unlikely
to recur.  
In her appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s material findings or
conclusions.  Rather, she provides a narrative statement explaining the reasons for her financial
problems and discussing her efforts to resolve them.  To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge
mis-weighed the evidence, her 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 also attached documents to her brief that post-date
the Judge’s decision.  Those documents are not part of the record and constitute new evidence that
the Board may not consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
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: Michael Ra’anan        
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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