KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: No authority for a conditional or contingent clearance.  Favorable decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-07540.a1
DATE: 01/08/2010
DATE: January 8, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-07540
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nichole Noel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On April 9, 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 October 5, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey
2
granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Department Counsel appealed pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s conclusion
that Applicant had mitigated the security concerns in his case was erroneous and whether the Judge
attempted impermissibly to grant a contingent security clearance.  Consistent with the discussion
below, we affirm the decision of the Judge.
Department Counsel correctly points out that this record does not support the Judge’s
application of FCMC 20(b), given that Applicant’s unemployment and underemployment were a
consequence of his own decisions and, therefore, not “largely beyond his control.”  Still, in the
Judge’s unchallenged whole-person analysis, he reached favorable conclusions regarding (1)
Applicant’s financial counseling; (2) Applicant’s payment of one of the four SOR debts and one
large non-SOR debt; (3) Applicant’s plan for paying his remaining debts; and (4) Applicant’s (and
his spouse’s)  full employment and ability to pay off their debts.  Under the circumstances of this
case, the decision is sustainable.
Department Counsel argues that, in a footnote to the decision, the Judge attempted to grant
Applicant a security clearance contingent on future monitoring of his financial condition.
Department Counsel correctly states that DOHA has no authority to attach conditions to an
applicant’s security clearance, and the footnote in question explicitly acknowledges that prohibition.
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0109 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2000).  Despite that, to the extent that a
reasonable person might interpret the footnote as an effort to grant a contingent clearance, it can have
no such effect as a matter of law.
Order
The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board