KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In his 2017 security clearance application (SCA), Applicant disclosed that he was
arrested for misapplying entrusted Federal property in 2015.  The following year he pled guilty
to that misdemeanor offense and paid a fine.  He admitted that, while employed as a letter carrier
for the U.S. Postal Service, he improperly dumped flyers and newsletters in a dumpster. He
resigned from that job under adverse circumstances.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-01480.a1
DATE: 04/03/2019
DATE: April 3, 2019
In Re:
-------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 18-01480
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 June
11, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On January 4, 2019, after the
hearing, 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 served in the military in Iraq, was honorably discharged from active duty, and
continues to serve in the Reserves.  He has experienced periods of unemployment from 2009 to
2016.  He has worked for a Federal contractor since 2016.  
In his 2017 security clearance application (SCA), Applicant disclosed that he was arrested
for misapplying entrusted Federal property in 2015.  The following year he pled guilty to that
misdemeanor offense and paid a fine.  He admitted that, while employed as a letter carrier for the
U.S. Postal Service, he improperly dumped flyers and newsletters in a dumpster. He resigned from
that job under adverse circumstances.  
Applicant admitted the SOR allegation that he had a child support arrearage of approximately
$36,500.  His child support payments had been sporadic due to chronic unemployment.  Starting in
2006, his pay was garnished for the arrearage.  He provided a one-page payment history reflecting
payments every two weeks of $425 in 2017 and $506 in 2018.  His last reported payment was made
during the month he responded to the File of Relevant Material (FORM).  He also admitted the SOR
allegation that he had a automobile loan past-due for about $570, with a balance of about $7,100. 
He gave the vehicle to a friend who agreed to take over the payments.  The friend reneged on the
deal.  Applicant provided a letter from the auto-loan creditor reflecting he verbally authorized a
payment of $291 in 2018.  He was supposed to continue making monthly payments on that loan, but
provided no documentation of further payments.  He provided character letters attesting to his
integrity and trustworthiness. 
The Judge found in favor of Applicant on a small debt that he denied and against him on the
remaining SOR allegations. He had a fiduciary responsibility to deliver the mail.  Insufficient time
has passed from his misdemeanor mail-handling offense to conclude further misconduct will not
likely happen again.  He bears responsibility for his forced resignation due to his misconduct.  He
made only sporadic child support payments before a court order. It is unclear what child support
payments he made before 2017 and why he was unemployed frequently.  He only produced proof
of one payment toward the auto loan.  His alleged debts are recent and ongoing.  He has not shown
that he acted responsibly under the circumstances.  
2
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant provides documents and details about the SOR allegations that
were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration.1   Such matters constitute new
evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from receiving or considering.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
  
Applicant argues that he has regularly made support payments to his children and believes
he is honoring his legal obligations, that he has acted responsibly in addressing his auto loan, and
that he was subjected to racial slurs on his mail route that led to the one-time lapse of judgment in
delivering newspaper flyers.  In a background interview in the record, Applicant indicated that he
was subjected to racial slurs on his mail route and reported that conduct to his supervisors without
any follow-up action being taken.  FORM Item 4.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of
the evidence in the record, and Applicant has not rebutted that presumption in this case.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2016).  Notwithstanding that presumption, it was
error for the Judge not to address explicitly Applicant’s explanation for the mail-handling offense,
even if he found it not credible.  Given the adverse findings under Guideline F, the Judge’s failure
to discuss Applicant’s explanation was harmless error.  Applicant also states that he is extremely
sorry for his work misconduct and made a promise never to do such a thing ever again.  He
maintains that, since his misdemeanor offense, he has “grown tremendously in character and
matured in disposition.”  Appeal Brief at 3.  His arguments amount to a disagreement with the
Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are not sufficient to establish that the Judge weighed the
evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016).  
Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision.  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.”
1 In his appeal brief, Applicant acknowledges that he previously “told only part of the story” and “now is
[providing] the entire story and entire truth.”  Appeal Brief at 3.  
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan           
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy 
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4