WPC'  x8Q"?Ԕ䟆w̭T91P};$/E i*3W]̓dX x@A_YKӜo bI*c ƽέf;Nب`0Gg9|V?&LX|` - \*8 I[[d @@ (0z.ꦒ~%o=|3 pګ Eݹ%-6'n4f{n(A3C5bKU’fvhw'Ǿ#%El1vm~FӢAQc f%p%$\o_(,_tuVHkǵ< IJ!P;lFwm= c8]ii Q[@Dw|ԟw"wCMxkC{B1.uOaEhRV'ǸOmA($YO0gVIA[luP'6 21,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat ,*(7 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof -)8 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision  onthewrittenrecord.OnOctober6,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearings  andAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeMichaelH.LeonarddeniedApplicantsrequestfora  securityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. t   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesdecisionwasarbitrary, L  capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. 8    The_SOR_ԀallegedthatApplicanthadtendelinquentdebtstotalingabout$22,270.TheJudge  ` foundagainstApplicantonallofthe_SOR_Ԁallegations.TheJudgeconcludedApplicanthada  L  problematicfinancialhistory,hadresolvednoneofthedebts,andhadfailedtoprovidedsufficient  8  corroboratingdocumentation. $    MuchofApplicantsappealpresentationconsistsofmattersfromoutsidetherecord.We   cannotconsidernewevidenceonappeal.DirectiveE3.1.29.     IntheFileofRelevantMaterial(FORM),DepartmentCounselincludedanunauthenticated p summaryofApplicantsbackgroundinterview,whichwaspartoftheDoDReportofInvestigation \ (_ROI_),andadvisedApplicantinafootnotethat,absentanobjectionfromhim,theJudgemay H considerthesummaryofinterview.ApplicantdidnotsubmitaresponsetotheFORM.Inthe 4 decision,theJudgestatedhedidnotconsiderthesummaryofinterviewessentiallybecause  p Applicanthadnotaffirmativelywaivedtheauthenticationrequirementfor_ROIs_ԀunderDirective  \ E3.1.20andtheFORMdidnotdemonstrateApplicantunderstoodtheimplicationsofnotobjecting H tothesummary. 4     ApplicantchallengestheJudgesdecisionnottoconsiderthesummaryofinterviewand   arguesthesummarycontainsinformationbeneficialtohim.In_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1505252(App.Bd.  Apr.13,2016),weconsideredasimilarissueand,basedonthefactsinthatcase,concludedthebest  resolutionwastoremandthecasetotheJudgetoconsiderthesummaryofinterviewandissueanew  decision.Inthiscase,however,theJudgesdecisiontoexcludethesummaryofinterviewwas l inconsequential.Inparticular,thesummaryofinterviewdoesnotestablishthatApplicant X  satisfactorilyresolvedanyoftheallegeddebts.Exclusionofthatdocumentfromconsideration D! likelyhadnoaffectontheoutcomeofthecase.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501494at3(App.Bd. 0"  Jul.8,2016). #l! Ѐ $X"   ApplicanthasnotestablishedthattheJudgecommittedharmfulerror.TheJudgeexamined $D # therelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthedecision.Thedecisionis %0!$ sustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhen &"% clearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484 '#& U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnel (#' beingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity. )$(  @-(, Ї@( Order  8    TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .  `      `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields      `     h   WilliamS.Fields      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard      `       `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy 8    `     h   JamesF.Duffy $t    `     h   AdministrativeJudge `    `     h   Member,AppealBoard L    CONCURRINGOPINIONOFADMINISTRATIVEJUDGEMICHAEL_RAANAN_     Themajorityopinionresolvesthecasewithouthavingtoreachtheissuesraisedin  DepartmentCounselsReplyBrief.Iagreewiththeresolutionofthecase.However,Iam  concernedaboutaseriousinconsistencybetweenDepartmentCounselslanguageintheFORMand p theirargumentsintheirReplyBrief. \    IntheFORM,DepartmentCounselnotesthattheyhaveincludedasummaryofPersonal 4"  SubjectInterview.Theythenassert,inpart, Ifnoobjectionsareraisedinyourresponsetothe  #p! FORM,orifyoudonotrespondtotheFORM,theAdministrativeJudgemaydeterminethatyou  $\" havewaivedanyobjectionstotheadmissibilityofthesummaryandmayconsiderthesummaryas $H # evidenceinyourcase.(DepartmentCounselsFORMatn.1p.1)Ibelievethatstatementis %4!$ reasonablyaccurateastothestateoftheDOHAcaselawtodate.Theword mayisusedtwicein & "% theabovequotedlanguage.Theword mayispermissiveinnature,notmandatory. ' #&   Bycontrast,however,intheirReplyBrief,DepartmentCounselassertsthattheJudgewas )$( requiredtoconsiderthesummarybecauseithadnotbeenthesubjectofanexplicitobjection.For *%) exampletheywrote Whilethestatementinthepresentcasewasnotspecificallyadopted,applicant l+&* raisednoobjectiontoitbecomingpartoftherecord,andthus,notonlyshouldithavebeenadmitted X,'+ baseduponthewaivedobjection,butthewaiveristantamounttoanadoption. D-(, Ї  Inasystemofdueprocess,wheremanyoftheApplicantsareprose,andthepartyopponent  isthegovernmentandisalwaysrepresentedbyattorneys,itisimperativethatthelanguageusedby  thosegovernmentattorneysisreliable.TotellaproseApplicantpriortohisorherdecisionto  objectthatsomethingmayhappeniftheyfailtoobject,andthenafterwardassertthatfailureto t objectnecessarilyproducesacertainresult,runscontrarytothedueprocessaffordedbythe ` Directive. L       `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ__  `    `     h   Michael_Raanan_  L     `     h   AdministrativeJudge  8     `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard $  ____