WPCd  0/q-;S[˂Q~gD_FRgU*gmQۻBsf`p*@L=PS'xɾR`OH\R<>~PJ,]X `%~erLŜ J4;z.j5cv)M<,ah3XB+);6Rk t Q}=ESU@7164Y !hZ /+L~/Odvo avRFrLxl{a[@/VcpZܕa7iKŢ=.+ :9l+hW~Ce3^X 9'DW|pjiOTѼi4:Gxݧi=7bK(u&b bXVob8rZ]}`N2ЦQSPbfh{ڴ2#}n nÎ?w9*oZ#UN % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx Z Z NC C EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E BG Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,˛K;=J3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:AstheJudgenoted,Applicantdidnotsubmitcorroboratingevidencewithherresponse  tothe_SOR_,nordidshesubmitaresponsetotheFORM.Applicantstatesonappealthatshe t submittedevidencetotheDoDCAFandhasattacheddocumentstotheAppealBrief.Oneof ` themisanemailtotheDoDCAF,whichshowsthatshesentatleastonedocumenttothem. L  However,thisdocumentpredatestheFORMandthuscannotbearesponsetotheFORM.Ifit 8  wastheresponsetothe_SOR_,thatisalreadyintherecord.Thissubmissiondoesnotrefutethe $ t JudgesfindingthatApplicantsresponsetothe_SOR_Ԁincludednocorroboratingevidence.  ` Adversedecisionaffirmed.  L  _CASENO_:1601237.a1 $  DATE:12/5/2017   _________________________   `     h      p DATE:December5,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdE3gA 4 InRe: /      C ApplicantforSecurityClearance  AY) xdEgA  ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4  )  ! )  " ) #  $ pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1601237 H'  4( .؉7r. \XXp l(    APPEALBOARDDECISION X ) APPEARANCES #l,  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  $D . JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel %!/  FORAPPLICANT  |'"1  Prose #XDX%& # T(#2     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnJuly +R&5 30,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat +>'6 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof ,*(7 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision -)8 onthewrittenrecord.OnOctober12,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearings  andAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeEdwardW._Loughran_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestfor  asecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethershewasdenieddueprocessand ` whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwith L  thefollowing,weaffirm. 8  _  TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis   `   ApplicantworksforaDefensecontractor.In2010,shewaschargedwithfelonyhitandrun,  8  whichresultedinapleaofguiltytorecklessdriving.Shepaidafineaswellasrestitution. $  Applicantwasunemployedfrommid2012untillate2013.HerSORliststwounpaidjudgmentsand   severalotherdelinquentdebts,forsuchthingsasarepossessedvehicle,unpaidparkingcitations,and   othermiscellaneousobligations.Applicantclaimedthatshedidnotowecertaindebts,had   establishedpaymentplans,etc.ShedidnotprovidecorroboratingevidenceinresponsetotheSOR   ortotheFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM).TheJudgeconcludedthatthereisinsufficientevidence p thatApplicantsproblemsareundercontrol,thatshehasmadegoodfaitheffortstopayherdebts, \ orthatsheotherwiseactedresponsibly. H   Discussion   p   AstheJudgenoted,Applicantdidnotsubmitcorroboratingevidencewithherresponseto H theSOR,nordidshesubmitaresponsetotheFORM.Applicantstatesonappealthatshesubmitted 4 evidencetotheDoDCAFandhasattacheddocumentstotheAppealBrief.Oneofthemisanemail   totheDoDCAF,whichshowsthatshesentatleastonedocumenttothem.However,thisdocument   predatestheFORMandthuscannotbearesponsetotheFORM.IfitwastheresponsetotheSOR,  thatisalreadyintherecord.ThissubmissiondoesnotrefutetheJudgesfindingthatApplicants  responsetotheSORincludednocorroboratingevidence.    Applicantalsoattachesanumberofdocumentsdatedwellaftertheonejustdiscussed.There X  isnothinginherbrieforelsewhereintherecordthatwouldshowthatshesentthesedocumentsto D! theDoDCAFalongwithherSORresponseortoDOHAinresponsetotheFORM.Indeed,oneof 0"  thedocumentsisacreditreportthatwascreatedtwodaysaftertheissuanceoftheJudgesdecision. #l! Asitstands,Applicanthasnotmadeaprimafacieshowingthatsheactuallysubmitteddocuments $X" thatwerenotincludedintherecord.Applicanthasnotestablishedthatshewasdeniedan $D # opportunitytopresentdocumentsinsupportofhercaseorthatshewasotherwisedeniedthedue %0!$ processaffordedbytheDirective.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1405996at2(App.Bd.Nov.3,2017). &"%   Applicantclaimsthatshehasmitigatedtheconcernsinhercase.However,herarguments (#' arenotenoughtorebutthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidence,norarethey )$( sufficienttounderminetheJudgesweighingoftheevidence.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1403069 |*%) at3(App.Bd.July30,2015). h+&*   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe @-(, decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay  begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Any  doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor t ofthenationalsecurity. `   @( Order  $ t   ThedecisionoftheJudgeis AFFIRMED .  L     `     h   Signed:MichaelRaanan      `     h   MichaelRaanan      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody $t    `     h   JamesE.Moody `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,AppealBoard 8    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy     `     h   JamesF.Duffy     `     h   AdministrativeJudge p    `     h   Member,AppealBoard