KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant also challenges the Judge’s finding that he did not receive financial
counseling.  He contends that financial counseling is mandatory to file bankruptcy.  However,
we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s finding about financial counseling.  By the close of the
record, Applicant had not established that he filed bankruptcy. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-02885.a1
DATE: 08/22/2018
DATE: August 22, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02885
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 7, 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 hearing. 
On May 15, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant, who is 32 years old, has been working for his current employer since late 2015. 
After serving in the military for about eight years, he was involuntarily discharged for failure to meet
physical fitness standards.  He received about $14,000 in severance pay and was then unemployed
for about 13 months.  His wife is employed and their combined monthly income is between $3,500
to $4,000.  Applicant’s wife and son have suffered medical problems that have resulted in treatment
expenses.  He is pursuing an associate’s degree and, when in school, receives a monthly GI Bill
housing stipend of about $1,200.
The SOR alleged that Applicant has 21 delinquent debts totaling about $40,000.  These debts
are reflected on credit reports from 2016 and 2017.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two
Federal debts that were satisfied through the withholding of his tax refunds.  The Judge found
against Applicant on the remaining debts, noting that Applicant had not contacted many of the
creditors or taken other significant steps to resolve the debts.  After the issuance of the SOR,
Applicant hired an attorney to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The attorney will not file the bankruptcy
petition until her fee is paid.  Applicant hopes to pay the fee within two months.  
Applicant’s brief includes matters that are not contained in the record.  We cannot consider
new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
In the appeal brief, Applicant claims “there is factual/legal error” involving two specific
debts.  Appeal Brief at 1.  Because one of those is a Federal tax debt for which the Judge found in
favor of Applicant, we need not address that assignment of error.  The other debt is a $430 cable-
service debt.  In his findings, the Judge noted that Applicant denied the cable-service debt,
reestablished an account with the provider after a move, is current with the provider, but did not
contact the provider to inquire about or dispute the debt.  Even if the Judge may have erred in his
findings and conclusions about the cable-service debt, it was harmless error because it did not likely
affect the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013).  
Applicant also challenges the Judge’s finding that he did not receive financial counseling. 
He contends that financial counseling is mandatory to file bankruptcy.  However, we find no reason
to disturb the Judge’s finding about financial counseling.  By the close of the record, Applicant had
not established that he filed bankruptcy.  
The balance of Applicant’s 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, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan.
8, 2016).  Applicant also request an extension to present further evidence.  We have no authority to
2
grant Applicant a continuance to develop additional favorable evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014).  
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.”
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