KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Although Applicant’s poor financial condition was affected by circumstances outside
his control, the Judge reasonably concluded that Applicant had failed adequately to address his
debts.  The Judge’s findings are based on substantial evidence.  Any error in those findings is
harmless. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-04380.a1
DATE: 02/18/2010
DATE: February 18, 2010
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-04380
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 5, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On December 23, 2009, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal.  1
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings were based
upon substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   Finding no error, we affirm. 1
The Judge found that Applicant had a significant amount of delinquent debt related to federal
and state tax liens, repossession of a truck, child support, and a credit card.  Applicant had paid off
the child support by the time of the hearing.  The federal tax liens arose due to Applicant’s neglect
in filing tax returns for years in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  Applicant’s family lived in a state
affected by a major hurricane.  Applicant incurred expenses on behalf of his family in the aftermath
of the storm.  
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge noted the affect that the storm had on
Applicant’s financial condition.  However, he also noted that Applicant’s significant tax debt
problems arose prior to that.  “Even though Applicant has known for more than a year of the
government’s concern [expressed in the SOR] about his unpaid taxes and other delinquent debts,
except for his child support obligation, he has yet to pay any of [his] past due debts.  He owes more
than $170,000 in past due taxes, a debt which continues to accumulate interest.  Applicant has done
too little to pay his past due obligations.”  Decision at 11.
Applicant challenges certain of the Judge’s findings of fact, principally the amount of his tax
debts.  After examining the record, we conclude that 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 same record.”)  See also ISCR Case No. 06-
21025 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2007). The differences in amounts alleged by Applicant do not change
the security significance of the tax debts, under the facts of this case.  Therefore, even if the Judge
erred, the error is harmless.  See ISCR Case No. 01-23362 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006); ISCR Case
No. 03-09915 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 16, 2004); and ISCR Case No. 01-11192 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 26,
2002).  
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including 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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “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: Michael D. Hipple           
Michael D. Hipple
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