KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: It is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation supporting
their claims about the status of alleged financial problems. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01932.a1
DATE: 08/30/2018
DATE: August 30, 2018
In Re:
------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01932
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 12, 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 hearing. 
On June 18, 2018, after the hearing, 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.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had a Federal tax lien filed against her in 2015 for about
$235,000; had two delinquent Federal student loans totaling about $58,000; had two delinquent
credit card accounts; and incurred about $5,000 in charges on a credit card account that she
fraudulently opened in her former father-in-law’s name.  The Judge found against Applicant on the
tax lien, two student loans, and one of the two delinquent credit card accounts and found for her on
the remaining SOR allegations. 
In her appeal brief, Applicant asserts that she did not have all the information she needed at
the hearing to address the SOR allegations and she incorrectly answered the Judge’s question that
asked whether she would lose her job if her security clearance was not granted.  These matters are
not a basis for granting Applicant any relief because they do not allege the Judge committed 
harmful error.  Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.1 through E3.1.32.3
Applicant contends that her student loans are current and will remain so until they are finally
paid.  In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant testified her student loans were in forbearance
until 2018.  However, in concluding the student loans remained unresolved, the Judge stated no
documentary evidence was submitted supporting Applicant’s claim that those loans were no longer
in default.  It is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation supporting
their claims about the status of alleged financial problems.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at
2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2016).  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s
material findings about the student loans are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable
characterization or inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.  Id. 
The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence.  For example, she states that she has complied with her obligations in an IRS
agreement to resolve the tax lien but her ex-husband has failed to uphold his part of the deal.  The
Judge made findings about Applicant’s efforts to the resolve the tax lien, but also noted she offered
no evidence of the IRS agreement, of seeking recourse against her ex-husband, or of the IRS not
holding her responsible for this marital debt.  Applicant also asserts that she is an upstanding citizen,
valued worker, and would never betray the trust and confidence placed in her to protect classified
or sensitive information.  Her arguments, however, are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed
the evidence in a manner that is 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
2
‘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: Charles C. Hale           
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3