KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s delinquent debts are recent and ongoing.  His unemployment was a
condition beyond his control.  He did not provide any proof of financial counseling or of
voluntary payments towards his delinquent debts.  His child support debt was satisfied though an
involuntary tax withholding.  Although he has a plan to resolve his delinquent debts, he has not
implemented it.  He did not provide evidence of contacting creditors to make payment
arrangements.  He has not met his burden of persuasion. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-00984.a1
DATE: 03/12/2019
DATE: March 12, 2019
In Re:
------------------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-00984
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
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 December 20, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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, who is 35 years old, served in the military, and received an honorable discharge. 
He has earned an associate’s degree.  He has been married twice and has five children.  He was
employed from September 2015 to  May 2017, when he was laid off.  He remained unemployed until
he began working at a car dealership on a commission basis in August 2017.  He was also self-
employed as a financial advisor since May 2017.  He attributes his financial problems to his recent
unemployment.
Applicant has ten delinquent debts totaling about $32,000.  His admissions and a credit
report establish the SOR allegations.  He noted that his previously payments towards his debts
showed he was financially responsible.  However, upon being released from a management position,
he was unable to make minimum payments towards his debts due to insufficient income.  He only
had $73 a month for payments on his delinquent debts, but expected that amount to increase in the
following years and that he would have them paid by early 2025.  He did not provide evidence that
he has made any payments.  The IRS applied a portion of his tax refund to a  delinquent child
support debt.  He and his wife do not recognize one debt; however, he did not provide evidence of
any action to dispute it. 
Applicant’s delinquent debts are recent and ongoing.  His unemployment was a condition
beyond his control.  He did not provide any proof of financial counseling or of voluntary payments
towards his delinquent debts.  His child support debt was satisfied though an involuntary tax
withholding.  Although he has a plan to resolve his delinquent debts, he has not implemented it.  He
did not provide evidence of contacting creditors to make payment arrangements.  He has not met his
burden of persuasion. 
    
Discussion
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. 
 
2
Applicant also contends that the Judge did not properly weigh and consider all of the record
evidence.  For example, he highlights his job loss, his prior history of financial responsibility, and
his plan for repayment of the debts.  The Judge, however, made findings about those matters and
discussed them in either her mitigation or whole-person analysis.  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). 
Applicant has not established 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, 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: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale               
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3