KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any
meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt.  Debts may fall off credit
reports for various reasons, including the passage of time. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-01250.a1
DATE: 02/13/2019
DATE: February 13, 2019
In Re:
------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-01250
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 May
21, 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 November 30, 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 and Analysis
Applicant admitted all of the delinquent debts in the SOR and two bankruptcy discharges. 
She experienced a period of unemployment in 2014 after being laid off from her job.  She provided
a chart reflecting that certain debts were in a payment plan, but provided no proof of those payments.
She enrolled other identified debts in a debt relief program, but provided no evidence of a
continuous stream of payments under that program because it was just recently established.  She
provided documentary evidence of payments towards some debts, had a debt cancelled, and settled
a debt. 
Applicant has done little to resolve her financial problems.  She failed to provide sufficient
documentation to mitigate the security concerns arising from the alleged debts.  She has not meet
her burden of showing that she acted responsibly under the circumstances, that her financial
problems are under control, or that those problems are unlikely to recur.  
Discussion
Applicant’s brief includes extensive explanations and documentation that are not contained
in the record.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
Applicant contends that the Judge did not properly weigh and consider all of the relevant 
evidence.  For example, she argues that the Judge “appears to have used [a more recent credit report]
to identify new debts not captured in [an earlier] credit report, but not highlight debts that no longer
appear on my credit report or that I am no longer financially responsible due to the age or validity
of the accounts.”  Appeal Brief at 1.  However, the fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit
report does not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03907 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 2, 2018).  Debts may fall off credit reports
for various reasons, including the passage of time.  Id.  Applicant’s arguments are neither enough
to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient
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. 15-04856 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). 
2
Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish 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.”
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan       
Michael Ra’anan
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
4