KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge was biased against her.  While the Judge questioned
Applicant throughout the hearing, sometimes a bit sharply, it appears to have been for the
purpose of clarifying the record and assisting Applicant in articulating which debts she had paid.
We find nothing in the record that would likely persuade a reasonable person that the Judge
lacked the requisite impartiality.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-00022.a1
DATE: 07/11/2016
DATE: July 12, 2016
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00022
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On June
22, 2015, DoD 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 April 25, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 was biased against her;
whether the Judge denied her an opportunity to present evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant was unemployed from mid 2009 to late 2010, and from late 2012 to late 2013. 
Applicant’s husband was unemployed due to a serious medical condition from 2009 to 2013. 
Applicant and her husband are both working now.
In 2014 Applicant completed her security clearance application (SCA).  Applicant answered
“no” to Question 26 requiring her to disclose any financial delinquencies.  When Applicant was
interviewed by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator in 2014, she indicated that
she had some previous financial difficulties but did not feel there were any accounts that needed to
be reported on the SCA.  At the DOHA hearing, Applicant said she did not know why she told the
OPM investigator that she did not feel she needed to report any delinquent accounts. Applicant
testified that she completed the SCA at a library and only had an hour to finish it.  Applicant further
testified that she answered “no” to all the questions concerning financial difficulties and delinquent
debts and attempted to go back and change her answer on the SCA, but the program would not let
her do so.  She stated that she was concerned that the program would erase all her previous answers. 
Applicant testified that she regretted her mistake; and at the time she completed the SCA, she was
aware that she had delinquent debts.  Applicant stated that many of the debts were incurred when
her husband became ill in 2009 and she had been attempting to resolve her financial situation since
then. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found Applicant has numerous delinquent debts that remain unresolved. 
Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show she has an established track record of being
fiscally responsible.  Applicant’s explanations as to why she did not disclose her numerous debts
on her 2014 SCA were contradictory.  Applicant’s omissions of her delinquent debts were
deliberate.  The Judge noted inconsistencies between Applicant’s explanation of her SCA answer
during the security clearance interview, and her explanation of same during her hearing testimony. 
The Judge concluded that the record left her with doubts about Applicant’s fitness for access to
national security information.  Although the Judge found in Applicant’s favor on five of the debts
alleged in the SOR, she found against her on the other seven debts, one of which totaled over
$40,000.    
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge was biased against her.  She states that the hearing was
an interrogation and the Judge upset her by making “constant insinuations.”  Applicant suggests that
she felt precluded from offering mitigating evidence such as the reason for her financial difficulties,
i.e., her husband’s illness, the fact that she has paid off the debts, and her high credit rating.   A party
who argues that a Judge is biased has a  “heavy burden of persuasion” on appeal.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 14-06440 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 14-03108 at 3 (App. Bd. May
20, 2015)).  Applicant states that she has a spotless record but admits she made a mistake by
answering “no” to her financial delinquencies on her SCA.  While the Judge questioned Applicant
throughout the hearing, sometimes a bit sharply, it appears to have been for the purpose of clarifying
the record and assisting Applicant in articulating which debts she had paid.  We find nothing in the
record that would likely persuade a reasonable person that the Judge lacked the requisite
impartiality.  Therefore, we conclude that Applicant has not met her heavy burden of persuasion. 
In her appeal, Applicant includes assertions that are outside the record.  We cannot consider
new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Our examination of the record does not support
Applicant’s suggestion that the Judge prevented her from presenting evidence.  In fact, Applicant
offered numerous documents, all of which were admitted.  Tr. at 22-30, 31.  In addition, the Judge
questioned her not only regarding the allegations in the SOR but also about her biographical
information, family circumstances, her education, her husband’s illness, her periods of
unemployment, etc., all of which were relevant to a whole-person analysis.  Tr. at 24-28.  At the
close of the hearing, she gave Applicant an opportunity to provide any other information that she
thought relevant.  Tr. at 84.  Applicant subsequently submitted further documentation and the Judge
admitted the documents and considered them.  We find no reason to conclude that Applicant was
denied an opportunity to present evidence.
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The 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 Decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan        
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom   
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board