KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings are sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01967.a1
DATE: 08/19/2016
DATE: August 19, 2016
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01967
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
November 9, 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 June 9, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 his findings of
fact 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 has held a clearance since 1991.  He was granted a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge
in 1995.  He stated that his wife had lost her job, causing them to fall behind on their bills.  At the
hearing he testified that the couple had a new house, a new child, and overcharged their credit cards. 
When he completed his security clearance application (SCA), he answered “no” to all financial
questions.  He told the clearance interviewer that they had had an “overwhelming amount of home
repairs and car repairs,” so that he was not able to make timely payments on his mortgage.  Decision
at 2.  He testified that they walked away from their mortgage due to violence in the neighborhood. 
They turned down an offer from the lender to refinance the loan.  During his clearance interview,
he stated that he had failed to disclose some of his debts due to oversight.  At the hearing, he
testified that he had not reviewed his credit report prior to completing his SCA and skipped over the
financial questions.  He stated that he did not go back and correct his answers.  He stated that his
supervisor was pressuring him to complete his SCA and he submitted it hurriedly, without realizing
that he had left his financial problems undisclosed.  
In mid-2013, Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.  The petition was
dismissed in late 2014 due to non-payment.  
The SOR listed 17 debts, totaling over $123,000.  The Judge found that some of the debts
had been resolved, including the largest ones resulting from the foreclosure of his home.  He also
found that some of the allegations did not contain sufficient information to put Applicant on notice. 
For others, however, the Judge found that the debts were not resolved. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved several allegations for Applicant.  However, regarding the seven that he
found against him, the Judge stated that the debts were numerous and that they were not incurred
under circumstances that would make them unlikely for recurrence.  He found that Applicant’s
financial problems did not yet appear to be under control, nor had Applicant demonstrated good-
faith efforts to resolve the debts.  Regarding Guideline E, the Judge cited to evidence that Applicant
knew that he had significant financial problems at the time he completed his SCA.  He stated that
Applicant is an experienced and well-educated adult and, under the circumstances, the Judge found
his explanations for his omissions to be unconvincing.  He stated that Applicant had not attempted
to correct his omissions and that they were perpetuated by his continuing denial of wrongdoing.
2
Discussion
Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that his omissions were deliberate.  Given the
Judge’s finding about Applicant’s education and his experience in holding a clearance, the
challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence.  Applicant contends that the Judge erred
in finding that he owed over $123,000 in debts.  However, the finding merely stated the total amount
alleged in the SOR.  The total amount of debts that the Judge resolved adversely to Applicant was
significantly less.  The Judge’s material findings are supported by “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.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  See ISCR Case No. 14-04226 at 3 (App. Bd.
Aug. 18, 2015). 
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 Ra’anan         
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3