KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence and are not sufficient to show the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASENO: 17-04235.a1
DATE: 10/02/2018
DATE: October 2, 2018
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-04235
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
February 8, 2018, 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 2, 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.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal:  whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Federal contractor.  She honorably served in the military and
reported being granted security clearances in 1984 and 2000.  In her 2015 security clearance
application (SCA), Applicant disclosed her failure to file her Federal and state income tax returns
for 2011 and 2012.  She attributed those failures to being distracted by work instability and
misplacing her W2s.   Her 2011 Federal and state tax returns were submitted in September 2017. 
Her 2012 Federal tax return was submitted in September 2014.1  Her IRS tax transcripts for 2011
and 2012 show she owes no balance.  
A credit report reflects that Applicant has a charged-off auto loan that has been delinquent
since 2015.2  She entered into an agreement with the creditor to make monthly payments of $350
on this debt and provided proof she made one payment.  She attended a financial course at her
church.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant filed her 2011 Federal income tax return about five years late, while her 2012
Federal income tax return was filed about one year late.  She has not provide an adequate
explanation for those delays.  By making only one payment on the delinquent debt, she failed to
establish a track record of consistent payments.  She has not shown that her financial problems are
under control or occurred under circumstances unlikely to recur.
Discussion
In her appeal brief, Applicant makes arguments based on matters that are not in the record. 
We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant also contends that the Judge failed to apply properly the adjudicative guidelines,
including the whole-person concept.  She notes that she disclosed her financial problems, attended
1 The Judge made no finding of fact about Applicant filing her 2012 state income tax return. 
2 The SOR alleges the auto loan was charged off in the approximate amount of $2,300.
2
financial counseling, filed the tax returns in question, and made a good-faith effort to resolve the
delinquent loan.  Her arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the
evidence and are not sufficient to show 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.”
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