KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling $64,000.  The Judge has drawn a
rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate unfavorable decision.  Adverse
decision reversed.
CASENO: 07-10729.a1
DATE: 08/29/2008
DATE: August 29, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-10729
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
In his decision, the Judge stated that Applicant had not acted responsibly in regard to his debts “since he has1
made no effort to legally end his marriage with his wife, despite being separated from her for more than five years.”
Decision at 8.  It is beyond the jurisdiction of these proceedings to evaluate an applicant’s (otherwise permissible)
decisions regarding marriage and divorce. 
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On January 29, 2009, DOHA 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 hearing.  On June 4, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge erred in his application of
the Guideline F mitigating conditions.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 51 year old employee
of a defense contractor.  He is married to his second wife, though they live separately.  He served in
the U.S. military from 1970 to 1980.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, the amounts alleged in the SOR totaling nearly
$64,000.  A large number of these debts were actually incurred by Applicant’s wife, due to medical
bills and to her writing checks with insufficient funds, etc.  These are debts for which Applicant is
legally responsible, along with his wife.   In the Analysis section of his decision, the Judge stated that
Applicant has not demonstrated a good faith effort to resolve his debts.  Furthermore, in performing
his whole-person analysis, the Judge concluded that the record evidence of Applicant’s debts  left
him with serious doubt as to Applicant’s fitness for a clearance.   We have examined the Judge’s
findings in light of the record as a whole.  The Judge’s material findings of security concern are
based upon substantial record evidence.  See  Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of
all the contrary evidence in the record.”)   
We have considered Applicant’s arguments on appeal and conclude that, to the extent that
the Judge’s decision contains error, it is harmless in that, even if such error did not occur, the Judge
would have decided the case in the same way.   See, e. g., ISCR Case No. 06-07247 at 2 (App. Bd.1
Feb. 13, 2008).  The Judge has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found” and his
ultimate adverse security clearance decision, both as regards the Guideline F mitigating conditions
and the whole-person analysis.   See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See
also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,
43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  The
Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility
3
for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 10.  See Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).
  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision 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