WPCd y->@_G#(k'1|OV 2(.M2I2WT:X}ٽY[\߰TqD ɢ@ b::E 4ͳ̏RnHoJP.(Ua7I(+V5F%_q8}&QР^KBRw #n% PzI+ֳ%0g,K3nS$~uԥC871ȥHSyC#l@ W%Me#~OlNߪv\]2PG[&4~~ yBijxY{'/ De$ypm?P;AjNIwk?|)"Nd╌F My/sXKAZ#UN % 0: ZC ^ w 4   m Z NC C C NE EG 0I 0D 0                                                                     BGHewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEU~J;EJ:i+003|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0   & x$USUS.,      1    _xXXԀApplicantcontendsthattheinformationheisprovidinginhisappealbriefisnotnewevidence,butsupport  forinformationpreviouslysubmittedandarticulatedinhisresponsetointerrogatories.Wedonotfindthisargument t persuasive.Therecorddoesnotcontaineitherinterrogatoriesoraresponsetothem.Evenifheisreferringtohis 8 Responsetothe_SOR_,insteadofinterrogatories,hisargumentstilldoesnothavemeritbecausemuchoftheinformation L heispresentingwasnotpreviouslysubmittedtotheJudgeforconsideration. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF  DIGEST:ApplicantsappealbriefincludesinformationthatwasnotpresentedtotheJudgefor  consideration.Wecannotconsidernewevidenceonappeal.ThebalanceofApplicants t argumentsamounttoadisagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidence,whichisnot ` sufficienttoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious, L  andcontrarytolaw.Adversedecisionaffirmed. 8  _CASENO_:1504764.a1  ` DATE:06/01/2017  8  ______________________   `     h      p DATE:June1,2017   .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdE[gA \ InRe: W      k ApplicantforSecurityClearance C AY) xdEgA  ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H ) 4  )  !   " pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1504764  p%   \& .؉7r. \XXp &    APPEALBOARDDECISION ' APPEARANCES D!*  &7%XX FORGOVERNMENT  #l, JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel #D-  FORAPPLICANT  % /  Prose #XX%&7R# |&!0     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On *)z$3 January8,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat *f%4 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentof +R&5 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecision +>'6 onthewrittenrecord.OnFebruary15,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeof ,*(7 HearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeEricH._Borgstrom_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequest -)8 forasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.    Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgeweighedtheevidencein  amannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. t _  TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis  8    Applicants11delinquentdebtstotalapproximately$42,000.Somedatebackto2010.  ` Applicantpresentednodocumentaryevidenceofanypaymentstowardthosedebts.Theyare  L  ongoingandunresolved.Betweenearly2009andmid2014,heattendedcollegeandwas  8  unemployedoremployedparttime;however,thereisinsufficientevidencetoconcludethatheacted $  responsiblytoaddresshisdelinquentdebtsortodevelopandimplementareasonabledebtrepayment   plan.Thereisneitherevidenceofcreditcounselingnorclearindicationsthathisfinancialsituation   isundercontrol.Totheextentthathedisputesacollectionaccountandtwodelinquentrent   accounts,thereisnoreasonableexplanationforthedisputesordocumentationtocorroboratehis   claims. p   Discussion  H     ApplicantsappealbriefincludesinformationthatwasnotpresentedtotheJudgefor  p consideration.Wecannotconsidernewevidenceonappeal.DirectiveE3.1.29. #  1      ׀  \     ThebalanceofApplicantsargumentsamounttoadisagreementwiththeJudgesweighing 4 oftheevidence,whichisnotsufficienttoshowthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthat   isarbitrary,capricious,andcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1406440at4(App.Bd.Jan.   8,2016).      TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay l begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department X  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt D! concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor 0"  ofthenationalsecurity.  #l! @( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields <     `     h   WilliamS.Fields ( x    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  d    `     h   Member,AppealBoard  P     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___