KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusion regarding
the consumer debts, which are sufficient independently to support the unfavorable security
clearance decision.  Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error regarding the
consumer debts, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed. 
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 18-01764.a1
DATE: 06/04/2019
DATE: June 4, 2019
)
In Re: )
)
---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01764
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
)
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 July
3, 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 February 28, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge
Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
As best as we can discern, Applicant is claiming that he submitted a response to Department
Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) that did not make it into the record.  In doing so, he
makes assertions from outside the record, which we normally cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears on the threshold issues of jurisdiction
and due process.  In his argument, he cites to a U.S. Postal Service tracking number that is
insufficient on this record to substantiate  his claim that he submitted documents in November 2018. 
He contends those documents showed he had a zero-dollar student loan balance.  From the matters
submitted, Applicant has failed to make a prima facie showing that he was denied due process.  See,
e.g. ISCR Case No. 15-02933 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 23, 2016).
In the decision, the Judge noted that the SOR alleged five delinquent student loans.  The
Judge found for Applicant on two of the student loans as well as for him on two state tax liens and
a child support debt.  Regarding the Judge’s favorable student loans findings, Applicant had
provided in his SOR response a document from the creditor reflecting that he had no delinquency
balance on those accounts as of September 19, 2018.  FORM Item 1.  The Judge found against
Applicant on the remaining three student loans and nine other debts, which included almost $30,000
in delinquent consumer debts.  
Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusion regarding the
consumer debts, which are sufficient independently to support the unfavorable security clearance
decision.  Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error regarding the consumer debts, the
decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed.
2
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
3