KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Statements by the investigator in an interview summary are not the interviewer’s
opinion.  They reflect the answers given to the interviewer’s questions.  Furthermore, even if
they did reflect the interviewer’s opinion, that would not bind DoD.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01099.a1
DATE: 12/15/2016
DATE: December 15, 2016
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01099
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
August 28, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). 
Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 21, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
Applicant is a 57-year-old employee of a Federal contractor.  He was hired by his current
employer in 2013.  In November 2009, he was convicted in a U.S. District Court of conspiracy to
commit wire fraud.  The criminal charge reflected that he conspired with others to knowingly, and
with the intent to defraud, make materially false statements over the telephone to individuals
interested in becoming investors in a company.  He was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment and
served 32 months until December 2012.  After his release, he was placed on supervised probation
until April 2016.  He is jointly and severally liable with his co-accused to pay over $1,200,000 in
restitution.  He is required to pay ten percent of his gross income toward the restitution debt.  He has
been making those payments and maintaining his financial responsibility.
In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that his criminal
conduct occurred from 2003 through 2009.  The criminal charge supports Applicant’s claim that his
criminal conduct occurred during a much shorter period, i.e., from about 2003 to about September
2005.  However, considering the nature and seriousness of Applicant’s criminal conduct and that
his probation ended in 2016, we find that the Judge’s error was harmless in that it is not likely to
have affected the outcome of the decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-07528 at 2 (Dec. 29, 2009). 
   
Applicant argues that he has always been on time with his scheduled restitution payments. 
He further contends the Government could garnish his wages if he did not make the payments, and
there is no reason to believe that the financial restitution could ever be used to coerce or influence
him.  In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant has been making his required restitution
payments.  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered
all of the evidence in the record, nor are they sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence
in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01284
at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2015).
Applicant further argues that the background investigator reported that there was nothing in
Applicant’s background, lifestyle, or association, to include his offense and incarceration, that could
be used for blackmail or coercion.  As the Appeal Board has previously noted, such statements in
a clearance interview summary represent the applicant’s answers to the interviewer’s questions, not
the interviewer’s opinion as to the applicant’s worthiness for a clearance.  In any event, even if an
2
investigator provided such an opinion, it would not bind the DoD in its evaluation of an applicant’s
case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03069 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 30, 2015).    
Applicant has failed to identify any harmful error.  The Judge examined the relevant
evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.  The decision is sustainable on
the 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: Catherine Engstrom           
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3