KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board concludes the Judge’s finding that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose
debts on her security clearance application reflects a reasonable interpretation of the record
evidence and is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-01724
DATE: 12/16/2016
DATE:  December 16, 2016
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01724
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Gary C. Llewellyn, Personal Representative
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
October 25, 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 decision on the written record.  On August 23, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Edward W. Loughran 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 and
whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge found in favor
of Applicant on the Guideline F allegations and two allegations under Guideline E.  The favorable
findings were not raised as an issue on appeal.  He found against her on one allegation under
Guideline E.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s unfavorable clearance decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact  
Applicant is a 59-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  She has worked for her current
employer since May 2012.  She is married and has two adult children.  
Applicant had financial problems which she attributed to her husband’s employment issues
beginning in 2009, and her two children entering college in 2008 and 2009.  Applicant has an unpaid
judgment and seven delinquent debts.  In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted owing most
of the alleged debts.  She stated that she would borrow from her mother to pay the debts.  Applicant
subsequently borrowed from her mother and paid or settled four of the remaining eight debts. 
Applicant has a plan for paying the remaining debts.  
In July 2012 Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA).  She answered  
“No” to the questions in Section 26 pertaining to her delinquent debts and the judgment entered
against her. 
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge found that Applicant mitigated the government’s concerns under Guideline F. 
The Judge found against Applicant on the allegation under Guideline E that she intentionally
falsified the questions concerning her delinquent debts.  He noted that excluding the judgment,
Applicant’s other debts became delinquent within the seven-year period referred to in the questions
on the SCA.  Applicant was aware of her delinquent debts at the time she filled out her SCA and
intentionally falsified material facts when she failed to disclose them.    
Discussion
In her appeal brief, Applicant cites to the Intelligence Community Policy Guidance Number
704.2 (October 2, 2008).  Preliminarily, this document has no direct relevance to Applicant’s case;
it governs Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) eligibility.  However, we recognize that the
adjudicative guidelines for SCI are virtually identical to the security clearance guidelines for cases
involving Guideline F and Guideline E, and will interpret Applicant’s arguments accordingly.  
Applicant contends that she did not deliberately falsify her SCA by failing to disclose
unfavorable information of security concern in response to the financial questions.  She argues that
her Facility Security Officer (FSO) was not competently performing her duties, that she had no help
filling out her SCA, and the FSO did not review her answers to it before submission.  She states that
if her FSO had reviewed her SCA, these omissions would have been resolved.  She states that the
FSO has since been terminated.  
The record contains sufficient evidence for the Judge to have concluded that Applicant was
aware of the delinquent debts in the SOR when she submitted her SCA.  In this regard, in her
Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted that her financial problems were attributable to her
husband’s employment status in 2009, and paying for her children’s college in 2008 and 2009.  She
stated that without her husband’s consistent income, their bills fell further and further behind and
she had no way of satisfying them.  She stated that she had to put most of the credit cards and
outstanding bills in her name making it difficult to keep them paid up-to-date.  Credit reports
confirm the delinquent accounts, which occurred within the seven-year reporting requirement of the
SCA questions.  The Judge considered Applicant’s explanation that the FSO did not go over the
SCA with her or explain the sensitivity of the whole process.  The Judge considered the record
evidence in light of his assessment of Applicant’s credibility.  The Judge noted that during her
background investigation when Applicant discussed her finances, she stated that her delinquent
debts occurred because of her need to pay her mortgage and support her children rather than paying
her debts.  The Board concludes the Judge’s finding that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose
debts on her SCA reflects a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence and is sustainable.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-24669 at 2 (App. Bd. March 14, 2008).     
Applicant challenges the Judge’s consideration of her conduct while employed by a school
five years ago and states that since the Judge found for her under Guideline F and for her on two of
the allegations under Guideline E, he should not have used these findings against her when
evaluating her case under the whole-person analysis.  She states that the incident at the school
occurred five years ago and since then, her behavior and employment have been exemplary.  We
find no indication that the Judge relied on the conduct that he otherwise found to be mitigated or not
proven.   
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors.  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 F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
                        Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom   
Catherine M. Engstrom
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board