FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: In light of the Judge’s sustainable findings, Applicant has not met his burden of
demonstrating that the Judge erred.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-07554.a1
DATE: 10/12/2007
DATE: October 12, 2007
In Re:
--------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-07554
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On June 12, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
2
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 hearing.  On April 30, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
We construe Applicant’s appeal as alleging that the Judge’s adverse security clearance
decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following sustainable findings of fact: Applicant, 40 years old at the time
of the Judge’s decision, holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering.  
In preparing his security clearance application, Applicant answered “no” to questions as to
delinquent debts over 180 days and 90 days respectively.  Actually, Applicant had several unpaid
debts.  
He owed $4329 to a collection agency for a credit card account.  Applicant testified that the
card was sent to him unsolicited and that as a consequence he has no obligation to pay the debt.  He
also stated that he had no contract with the collection agency and, for that reason as well, had no
intention to pay. 
Applicant defaulted on a debt of around $360 for the purchase of a suit.  The seller charged
off the account and turned it over to a collection agency.  For the same reason as that mentioned
above, Applicant has declined to pay the collection agency.
Applicant owed a debt of $443 for a cell phone.  He had a dispute with the service provider
over, among other things, whether the contract was for one year or was for a longer period of time.
Applicant has declined to the pay the debt, arguing that his contract had expired after one year,
contrary to the position taken by his service provider.  
Applicant had a cell phone with another company and declined to pay $112, which he
asserted were roaming fees that he did not owe under the contract.  The Judge found that Applicant
did not corroborate his claims about this debt.
When confronted by an investigator about these debts, Applicant stated that he had no
intention to pay them off.  At the hearing he claimed, as stated above, lack of privity of contract with
the collection agencies.  He also claimed that the statute of limitations had run and asserted that, in
any event, he had discharged these debts by filing a financing statement under the Uniform
Commercial Code.  Applicant provided no corroboration for his claim that his debts were discharged
by operation of law.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating
that the Judge erred.
3
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan                   
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                   
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board