KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not included in the
record.  The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.  He also cites
to the effect that a clearance denial will have on him and his company.  The Directive does not
permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-04350.a1
DATE: 11/29/2018
DATE: November 29, 2018
In Re:
-----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-04350
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 15, 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 September 25, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge
Philip J. Katauskas 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 four delinquent debts totaling about $146,000.  He
admitted those allegations.  He stated that he was adhering to a good-faith effort to repay a charged-
off debt of over $40,000, but provided no corroborating documentation.  For a student loan in
collection for over $10,000, he provided one document showing a first payment of $10.  The Judge
found against Applicant on those two debts because he failed to provide sufficient documentation
showing they were being resolved and found in favor of him on the remaining two debts.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not included in the
record.  The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶
E3.1.29.  Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact.  His other arguments are
not sufficient to show that the Judge’s rulings or conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  Directive E3.1.32.3.  He also cites to the effect that a clearance denial will have on him and
his company.  The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015).  
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
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
2
Signed: James F. Duffy             
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale            
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3