KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence,
we conclude that Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-00817.a1
DATE: 01/07/2019
DATE: January 7, 2019
In Re:
-------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-00817
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 19, 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 October 9, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a
security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge found that Applicant had a substantial number of delinquent debts, most of which
were for student loans.  The Judge resolved the loans in Applicant’s favor, although he found against
her on other allegations, which were for a medical expense and for various collection accounts. 
Applicant’s brief includes a substantial amount of information from outside the record, which we
cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  She cites to various personal circumstances that affected her
financial problems and contends that her debts do not reflect poorly upon her character.  To the
extent that she is arguing that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence, we conclude that
Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.    See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02463 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2018).
She also notes that she does not have any sort of problem with alcohol abuse, gambling,
mental health issues, etc.  She appears to be referring to Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18, which is
quoted in the SOR and in the Decision.  This paragraph states, among other things, that financial
distress can be caused or exacerbated by other issues of security concern, such as those difficulties
that Applicant mentions in her brief.  However, that aspect of the Guideline F security concern was
not raised in Applicant’s case.  As she states, there is nothing in the record to suggest that she abuses
alcohol, gambles, or has mental health difficulties.  Rather, the aspect of the concern that the Judge
discussed was that Applicant’s apparent inability to satisfy debts and her history of not meeting
financial problems raised questions about her judgement and reliability.1  This was reasonable, in
light of the record that was before him.  We find no error in the Judge’s treatment of the
disqualifying conditions.
The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse 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.”
1See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 19(a) and (c).
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.    
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
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