Applicant’s answer to the SOR did not state whether she desired a hearing or a decision on the written record.1
Neither did the Government request a hearing.  Therefore, consistent with Directive ¶  E3.1.7, the Judge produced a
decision on the written record.  Decision at 2. 
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Given the extent of Applicant’s delinquent debts, the evidence she submitted in her
own behalf was not sufficient to mitigate the Guideline F security concerns in her case.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 07-15062.a1
DATE: 03/23/2009
DATE: March 23, 2009
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-15062
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 August 27, 2008, 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).  On January 29,
2009, after considering the written record,  Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien denied Applicant’s1
The Judge’s favorable findings under SOR subparagraphs 1(h), (p), and (u) are not at issue in this appeal.2
request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed an 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 are based upon substantial evidence and whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law.   Finding no error, we affirm.2
The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, despite the fact that certain
debts listed in the SOR were repeats of others.  Applicant’s gross annual pay is $32,485 and her net
is $20,000.  Applicant has entered into an agreement with a debt consolidation program.  She is a
46 year-old divorced mother of three.
Applicant argues that “the amount of my debt is not correctly listed.”  She asserts that she
does not have over $100,000 in debt and that some of the items (debts) are duplicated.  The Board
construes Applicant’s statement as a claim that the Judge incorrectly found that she has $100,000
in debt.  A review of the Judge’s decision reveals that the Judge never made an explicit finding that
Applicant had $100,000 in debt.  Rather than make a specific finding on the total amount of
Applicant’s debt, the Judge referenced the fact that the SOR alleged 21 debts which totaled more
than $100,000.  The Judge noted that Applicant disputed the $100,000 total and claimed that her
actual total delinquent debt amounted to approximately $73,000.  Thus, the Judge was aware of
Applicant’s admission that she had $ 73,000 in debt, and, since the Judge made no finding as to the
aggregate amount of Applicant’s debt, there is nothing in the decision to indicate that the Judge’s
analysis and conclusions were based on a finding that Applicant had $100,000 in debt.  Indeed, the
Judge found that some of the debts listed in the credit reports are duplicates.  Given this, and
inasmuch as Applicant admitted to $73,000 in debt, the Board concludes that, after a review of the
record evidence in this case, the $27,000 discrepancy between the amount alleged in the SOR and
the amount admitted to by Applicant did not materially alter the Judge’s analysis or conclusions in
the case.  In fact, the Judge’s found in Applicant’s favor regarding several of the allegations in the
SOR and ultimately found against Applicant on only $53,350 of debt.  Applicant has not established
harmful error on the part of the Judge.  
The Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by
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 same record.”) Applicant asserts that the Judge erred concerning the amount
she owes for child support payments.  However, the Judge found in Applicant’s favor under the SOR
allegation pertaining to this matter.  Therefore, even if the Judge’s finding of fact was erroneous, it
was harmless.  See ISCR Case No. 06-23112 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 31, 2007); ISCR Case No. 00-0250
at 6 (App. Bd. Jul. 11, 2001).   
In support of her appeal Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the record,
which the Board cannot consider.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or
considered by the Appeal Board”).  The Judge’s decision, viewed in light of the record as a whole,
“Applicant is . . . a mature, responsible adult.  She accrued significant debt over the past several years.  In3
response to the government’s concerns she offered proof that she pays one debt: her child support arrearage, which is
paid by garnishment.  She also offered proof that she signed an agreement with a debt-relief organization, but no record
evidence of payments.  Absent evidence that the payment plan is underway, and that Applicant has, in fact, begun making
payments, the government’s security concerns remain.  A fair and common-sense assessment of available information
bearing on Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance shows she has not satisfied the doubts about her ability or
willingness to protect the government’s interests.  Because protection of the national interest is paramount in these
determinations, such doubts must be resolved in favor of the government.”  Decision at 7.  
draws a rational connection between the facts found and its ultimate denial of a security clearance
for Applicant.   See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also Motor Vehicle3
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 the national interest to allow Applicant access to classified
information” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 7.  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: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board