KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief does not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all
of the evidence in the record.  She also argues that, since obtaining her current job, she has
become financially secure and continues to make every effort to resolve her debts and tax filings,
but she has failed to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-00360.a1
DATE: 04/04/2019
DATE: April 4, 2019
In Re:
----------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-00360
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
March 23, 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 hearing. 
On January 8, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
 The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from unfiled
and unpaid Federal and state taxes.  In her appeal brief, Applicant has not challenged any of the
Judge’s rulings or findings of fact.  Instead, she asks that we look at the facts and reconsider her
unfavorable clearance decision.  The Board does not review cases de novo.  She believes the Judge
focused on her past financial problems and did not examine her current efforts to correct those
problems.  However, her appeal brief does not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all
of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-05959 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016).  She
also argues that, since obtaining her current job, she has become financially secure and continues
to make every effort to resolve her debts and tax filings, but she has failed to establish that the Judge
weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016).  
  
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, 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
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale           
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
2