KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: .  If Applicant wanted the Judge to consider matters in his possession that were not
contained in the FORM, it was his obligation to provide that information.  To the extent that
Applicant is claiming his right to submit matters in mitigation was somehow impaired, we
conclude such a contention is without merit. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00962.a1
DATE: 11/20/2018
DATE: November 20, 2018
In Re:
----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00962
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
April 27, 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 September 6, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge
Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014.  It was later converted to a Chapter 13
bankruptcy and eventually dismissed when he could not keep up with scheduled payments due to
a medical issue.  He has an outstanding Federal tax lien for about $11,000.  His Offer in
Compromise was rejected, and he was informed that he could appeal that decision, but provided
nothing further in that regard.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on a state tax lien allegation,
but against him on the bankruptcy and Federal tax lien allegations.
Applicant’s brief contains matters that are not contained in the record, including an IRS
Installment Agreement dated August 30, 2017.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. 
Directive E3.1.29.
Applicant argues that the Judge’s decision was defective because supporting documents were
not considered.  He asserts that an investigator informed him in January 2017 that additional
documents would be obtained from the IRS and notes his “Offer in Compromise” was not
considered.1  His argument is not persuasive.  On August 1, 2017, Department Counsel’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM) was forwarded to Applicant.  He received the FORM on August 7, 2017,
and was given 30 days from its receipt to file objections or submit additional matters.  The FORM
contained 12 exhibits that represented the Government’s evidence.  The FORM advised him that,
if he did not file objections or submit additional matters, his case would be assigned to a Judge “for
a determination based solely on this File of Relevant Material.”  [Emphasis added.]  FORM at 4. 
Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM.  If Applicant wanted the Judge to consider
matters in his possession that were not contained in the FORM, it was his obligation to provide that
information.  To the extent that Applicant is claiming his right to submit matters in mitigation was
somehow impaired, we conclude such a contention is without merit.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-
07664 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2009).  Applicant has not established any basis for granting him
relief on appeal.  
Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.  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
1 Applicant apparently means his IRS Installment Agreement when he refers to his Offer in Compromise.  The
first payment on his installment agreement was due in October 2017. 
2
personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national
security.”
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: James E. Moody         
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, 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
4