KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Although Applicant demonstrated that the Judge made an error in his findings of fact,
the error is harmless.  Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his
delinquent debts.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-08154.a1
DATE: 12/15/2009
DATE: December 15, 2009
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-08154
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 April 30, 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 September 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E.
Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed 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; whether the Judge erred in his application of the
See discussion below.  1
pertinent mitigating factors; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.  Finding
no harmful error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is an imagery intelligence analyst
employed by a federal contractor.  He is married and has four adult children, one of whom lives with
Applicant while attending college.  Applicant has four grandchildren.  One of the grandchildren has
a father who provides some support.  Applicant contributes to his grandchildren’s households.  
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, including one for over $24,000 for an automobile.
The Judge found that Applicant and his wife have experienced periods of unemployment and have
suffered from medical problems, all of which have contributed to Applicant’s financial condition.
Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1997, which resulted from his being held liable
for $20,000 in a dispute over a real estate transaction.  Applicant lost a second house in 2000, due
to diminished income when his work hours were reduced.   He lost a government job in 2004, when1
he failed to qualify for a security clearance.  He was laid off from another job in 2007, when the
contract he was working on was terminated.  
In addition to the automobile debt, Applicant and his wife have approximately $4,850 in
undisputed debt which they have not yet addressed.  Applicant has become more involved in the
family’s finances recently, and he and his wife have consulted a financial counselor.  They have
devised a budget, which includes funds for payments on the automobile debt.  “Their current budget
reflects that Applicant’s current position provides him with a higher compensation package than he
received in prior years . . . The majority of progress made by Applicant and his wife toward their
delinquent debts and credit report was made possible by Applicant’s acquisition of his current
position and recent financial guidance.  
The Judge acknowledged that Applicant’s financial problems were due in large measure to
causes outside his control.  However, the Judge stated that Applicant had not demonstrated a track
record of actual debt repayment.  See ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008); ISCR
Case No. 99-0012 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999).  He noted, for example, that Applicant’s financial
plan is at least partially dependent on contingent future income such as overtime pay and a possible
tax refund, which may not materialize.  The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met his burden
of persuasion as to mitigation.
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in some of his findings.  For example, Applicant
challenges the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s diminished income in 2000 caused him to lose a
house.  Applicant states that it was his wife, not he, who experienced that problem.  The record
evidence demonstrates that Applicant’s contention is correct.  See Applicant Exhibit E, Time-line
of Events, at 1.  The Judge’s finding is in error.  However, as Applicant himself acknowledges in his
brief, this error did not likely affect the outcome of the case.  Therefore, it is harmless.  See ISCR
01-23362 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006); ISCR Case No. 03-09915 (App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2004); ISCR Case
No. 01-11192 (App. Bd. Aug. 26, 2002).  Applicant also challenges the Judge’s statement that his
current job is more lucrative than his previous ones have been.  Applicant contends that the Judge’s
statement does not take into account the fact that his wife no longer works, with the result that his
overall disposable income is less than he believes the Judge understood it to be.  The Board has
examined this finding.  It was based on an exhibit provided by Applicant, the household budget.
Viewed in that light and in the context of Applicant’s presentation of his many financial setbacks,
the Judge’s finding is not an unreasonable interpretation of Applicant’s current financial situation.
However, even if the Judge erred, we conclude that the error is also harmless.
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and
the whole-person factors.  The decision draws  “a ‘rational connection between the facts found and
the choice made.’”  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 for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 12.  “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett            
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, 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