KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief also claims there are two errors in the hearing transcript. 
Specifically, she claims the transcript incorrectly reflects the acronym of the entity from which
she received credit counseling and incorrectly reflects the year in which she started that
counseling.  Because she stated that she was responsible for the mistake pertaining to the
acronym, no relief for that error is warranted on appeal.  The other claimed error regarding the
start-date of the counseling fails for lack of specificity because Applicant fails to indicate
whether she or the court reporter was responsible for that mistake.  However, even if the court
reporter was responsible for that error, it is a harmless error because it likely did not affect the
outcome of the case.  In this regard, we note the Judge based her decision primarily on
Applicant’s failure to act responsibly in addressing the credit card debt. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 17-02350.a1
DATE: 01/11/2019
DATE: January 11, 2019
In Re:
----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02350
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 July
12, 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 October 19, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether there were errors in the hearing
transcript and whether Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Finding of Fact and Analysis
The SOR alleged that Applicant had three delinquent debts.  The Judge found in favor of
Applicant on two small medical debts and against her on a delinquent credit card account of about
$23,900.  Applicant attributed the credit card debt to the creditor engaging in criminal activity. 
Applicant did not provide documentation that corroborated her belief.  Documentation from the
creditor, however, reflected Applicant had over $16,000 in cash advances and over $3,000 in
overdrafts that were subject to 21% interest and dated back a number of years.  Applicant disputed
the credit card debt.  While the creditor and three credit reporting agencies verified the debt was
accurate, it is scheduled to be removed from her credit reports in November 2018.  Applicant
indicated that she was waiting for the debt to fall off her credit reports.  She also testified that she
received financial counseling between 2006 and 2011, in 2013, and in 2016, but did not provide
corroborating documentation.  There is insufficient evidence to conclude she acted responsibly
regarding the credit card debt.  
Discussion
Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not contained in the
record.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant’s appeal brief also claims there are two errors in the hearing transcript. 
Specifically, she claims the transcript incorrectly reflects the acronym of the entity from which she
received credit counseling and incorrectly reflects the year in which she started that counseling. 
Because she stated that she was responsible for the mistake pertaining to the acronym, no relief for
that error is warranted on appeal.  The other claimed error regarding the start-date of the counseling
fails for lack of specificity because Applicant fails to indicate whether she or the court reporter was
responsible for that mistake. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0050 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001). 
However, even if the court reporter was responsible for that error, it is a harmless error because it
likely did not affect the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15148 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul.
25, 2013).  In this regard, we note the Judge based her decision primarily on Applicant’s failure to
act responsibly in addressing the credit card debt.    
2
As best we can discern, Applicant also contends that the Judge did not consider all of the
record evidence and mis-weighed the evidence.  For example, she asserts that the credit card debt
was due to the creditor’s criminal activity, that she experienced periods of unemployment while
working on Federal contracts, that she exercised good judgment in handling her financial matters,
and that the credit card debt has been removed from her credit reports.  The Judge, however,
discussed those matters in her decision.  Applicant’s arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor enough to show that the
Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 17-02488 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2018).   
   
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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information 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