KEYWORD: Guidleline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect
applicants to present documentation corroborating their claims that debts have been satisfied, are
being resolved, or have been disputed. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-03247.a1
DATE: 09/20/2018
DATE: September 20, 2018
In Re:
------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03247
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
October 2,  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 July 10, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari
Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive
¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
 Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it
contains documents that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration.  The Appeal
Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Her brief also contains a
narrative statements about the efforts she has taken or is taking to resolve her financial problems.
In the decision, the Judge stated:
In the FORM [File of Relevant Material], [Applicant] was informed that the evidence 
she submitted in her Answer to the SOR was likely insufficient to mitigate the
financial allegations.  Despite that notice, she did not provide additional
documentary evidence to confirm her assertions that she was resolving, had resolved,
or had obtained recent and credible proof that the majority of the alleged debts were
not her responsibility.1
The Appeal Board has previously noted that it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to
present documentation corroborating their claims that debts have been satisfied, are being resolved,
or have been disputed.2  See, e.g. ISCR Case No. 07-10310 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2008). 
Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  (See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3,
2017).   
The Board does not review cases de novo.  The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case
is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. 
Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying
Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan       
Michael Ra’anan
1 Decision at 7.  
2 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(e) states “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of
the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the
dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue[.]” Emphasis added.
2
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