KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant attributes his financial problems to an overseas lottery “scam.”  He
continued to participate in the activity and believes he may receive $500,000.  Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 10-01024.a1
DATE: 06/24/2011
DATE: June 24, 2011
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-01024
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
1Item 4, Applicant’s SCA, states, at  Section 13a, that Applicant had been employed by a Government contractor
from March 2001 until the present.   
2See Item 5, Subject Interview: “In late 2007 [Applicant] became involved in what he describes as a lottery
scam.  He received mail and phone calls offering him millions in possible winnings.  He could not recall the name of
the company . . . He began sending money to various people, in Jamaica, who requested the money . . . He received
payments back from $9000.00 to $22,000.00.  The checks were deposited directly in his [Bank] account or went directly
into his [Bank] charge card.  The checks were later cancelled by whoever sent them.  He has continued to [receive]
requests for additional money with promises of great rewards.  He continues to send money to these individuals even
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 19, 2010, 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 decision on the written record.  On March 31, 2011,
after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 the Judge erred in finding that he
had deliberately falsified his security clearance application (SCA) and whether the Judge’s adverse
security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 78-year-old senior
logistician employed by a Defense contractor.  Her served in the U.S. Navy, retiring in 1977.
Applicant and his wife raised five children, one of whom is a Navy captain.  A grandson is a
midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy.  Applicant worked for a Government contractor from 2001
until at least December 2010.1  He stated that he had access to classified information since 1999. 
 
The SOR lists three debts.  Two of them are for charged-off credit cards.  Applicant used
these cards to pay for such things as travel and vacations, gifts, cash advances, and gambling.  The
third Guideline F allegation pertains to a mortgage debt.  Applicant claimed to have communicated
with the mortgage holder requesting a settlement.  However, he presented no corroboration.
Applicant has a monthly gross income of $8,000.  His personal financial statement discloses
$754,000 and $88,000 owed on two real estate mortgages, $14,000 on past-due federal income taxes,
and $3,000 on a car note.  
In his security clearance interview, Applicant stated that his financial problems were the
result of his participation in a “lottery scam.”  Decision at 3.  Since 2007, he had been sending
money to recipients in Jamaica and had received “winnings” by checks in amounts ranging from
$9,000 to $22,000.  However, some of these checks were not honored and he acquired debt.  He
believes that he has spent over $100,000 on this scam.  Despite Applicant’s characterization of the
activity as a scam, he was still voluntarily participating in it as of December 2009.  Applicant
advised that some of the cash advances he had charged on his credit cards were used to participate
in this scam.2  
though he believes it is a scam.”
3Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(a): “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment[.]”  
4Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]”
5Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(c): “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]”  
6Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(d): “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts[.]”  
7“Considering the number and total value of the debts, how the debts were acquired, Applicant’s military service
experience, his many years working for a Government contractor, and his experience with the security clearance process,
I find Applicant’s claims of innocent mistake are not credible.”  Decision at 7.  
3
Applicant advised that he believes that the people running this scam are going to pay him
for the checks they failed to honor.  “He claimed to have the financial means [to] pay all of his
delinquent debts; however, he is waiting for the lottery people to pay what they owe him.  He
believes he may receive $500,000 because he recently received a letter from the general counsel to
the United Nations advising him of that fact.”  Decision at 3.  
In completing his SCA, Applicant was required to disclose whether, during the preceding
seven years, he had defaulted on any loan; had debts turned over to a collection agency; had any
account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed; had been
over 180 days delinquent on any debt; and whether he was currently 90 days delinquent on any debt.
He answered “no” to these questions.  These answers were false, in light of the debts alleged in the
SOR.  His failure to list these three debts was deliberate.  
In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge stated that Applicant had failed to present
evidence sufficient to raise any of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.  He stated that Applicant
has failed to show (1) that his financial problems are unlikely to recur;3 (2) that the circumstances
of his debts were outside his control and that he had behaved responsibly;4 (3) that his financial
problems are under control or are being resolved;5 or (4) that he has made a good faith effort to pay
his debts.6  The Judge also stated that the record, viewed as a whole, supported a conclusion that
Applicant’s false answers to the SCA were deliberate.7  The Judge considered Applicant’s many
years of service to the U.S., both as a member of the military and as a contractor.  However, the
Judge stated that Applicant’s mitigating evidence was “sparse” and failed to demonstrate that
Applicant was worthy of a clearance.
Applicant has presented new evidence in support of his appeal.  This evidence includes
written communications between Applicant and some of his creditors.  We cannot consider this new
4
evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  (“No new evidence shall be received or considered
by the Appeal Board.”).  See also ISCR Case No. 09-03616 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 25, 2011).  
The record supports a conclusion 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 conclusion that Applicant falsified answers about financial matters on his
security clearance application is reasonably supported by the evidence, as is his conclusion that
Applicant’s financial delinquencies are of security concern and are unmitigated.  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).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor
of the national security.”
Order
The Judge’s adverse 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
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board