KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s description of Item 7 of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) is
ambiguous and may be in error and the error may well have affected his evaluation of the case. 
The financial statement shows that Applicant, after paying her monthly expenses (but prior to
paying down her debts) actually has a monthly remainder of $536.10 (not $263, as the Judge
found).  According to the financial statement she then uses one half of that ($263) to pay down
her debts and is left with a net remainder of $263.10. Additionally, the Judge correctly notes the
lack of corroboration for Applicant’s statements regarding her payments on her debts.  The
FORM, at Section VII, contains language which may not reasonably have advised Applicant of
the nature of her opportunity to submit evidence (e.g., documents which would corroborate her
claims) under the Directive. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 08-05259.a1
DATE: 05/19/2009
DATE: May 19, 2009
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-05259
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Applicant also cites to  record evidence that two debts (a telephone debt and a bank debt) named in SOR1
paragraphs 1.e and 1.i. are resolved.
2
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 October 14, 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).  Applicant
requested a decision on the written record.  On March 17, 2009, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge found that “Applicant submitted a personal financial statement that showed she
has about $263 remaining each month after expenses.  That figure includes payment on the debts
listed in SOR  ¶¶ 1.e 1.f.” (Decision at 3.)  The Judge’s description of Item 7 of the File of Relevant
Material (FORM) is ambiguous and may be in error and the error may well have affected his
evaluation of the case.  The financial statement shows that Applicant, after paying her monthly
expenses (but prior to paying down her debts) actually has a monthly remainder of $536.10 (not
$263, as the Judge found).  According to the financial statement she then uses one half of that ($263)
to pay down her debts and is left with a net remainder of $263.10. Additionally, the Judge correctly
notes the lack of corroboration for Applicant’s statements regarding her payments on her debts.
(Decision at p. 4.)   The FORM, at Section VII, contains language which may not reasonably have1
advised Applicant of the nature of her opportunity to submit evidence (e.g., documents which would
corroborate her claims) under the Directive. Accordingly, in the interest of administrative economy,
the case is hereby remanded to the Judge for further processing and the Judge is instructed to reopen
the record to allow the parties to submit relevant evidence.  Nothing about this action shall prejudice
the appeal rights of the parties.  
ORDER
The case is REMANDED to the Administrative Judge for further processing in accordance
with this decision.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
3
Signed: Jean E. Smallin                 
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board