KEYWORD: Guideline F and Guideline J
DIGEST: Applicant’s assertions in his appeal only concern two debts alleged under Guideline F. 
This case also included formal findings against Applicant under Guideline J, and Applicant
raised no issues regarding those findings.  There is no presumption of error below.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 04-08312 at 2 (App. Bd. July 14, 2005).  As the Judge’s adverse decision is fully
supported by his formal findings under Guideline J, any errors involving matters relating to
Guideline F are harmless.  
CASENO: 15-02481.a1
DATE: 01/31/2017
DATE: January 31, 2017
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02481
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 6, 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 J
(Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On November 10, 2016, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
The SOR alleged Applicant had 13 delinquent debts totaling about $10,608, two domestic
assault and battery arrests (2013 and 2014), and a conviction for a misdemeanor bogus check offense
in 2008.  In his findings, the Judge noted that Applicant was convicted of both domestic assault and
battery offenses based on his guilty pleas.  The Judge found against Applicant on all of the SOR
allegations.  He concluded that Applicant offered insufficient evidence to support any of the
mitigating conditions.  He specifically noted Applicant demonstrated no progress toward debt
resolution, failing to resolve even a $50 medical collection that had been delinquent since 2009.   
In his appeal, Applicant contends that he told an investigator during an interview that he was
making back child support payments and would soon be caught up.  He also claimed he told the
investigator that he would be going to court over another account and it would be resolved.  He
stated that resolution of these two debts would lower his indebtedness by about $5,000, and he
thought a hearing was not necessary because those two debts were being addressed.1  In the decision,
the Judge ruled the summary of Applicant’s interview with the Office of Personnel Management
investigator was not admissible under Directive ¶ E3.1.20 because it was neither attested to nor
adopted by Applicant.  Even if the Judge had considered the interview, it is not likely that it would
have changed the result.  In the summary of the interview, Applicant is reported to have stated he
was making child support payments, but they had stopped and he was expecting them to restart when
collection responsibility was transferred from one state to another.  The summary of the interview
makes no reference to a court proceedings regarding the other debt.  
Applicant’s assertions in his appeal only concern two debts alleged under Guideline F.  This
case also included formal findings against Applicant under Guideline J, and Applicant raised no
issues regarding those findings.  There is no presumption of error below.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
04-08312 at 2 (App. Bd. July 14, 2005).  As the Judge’s adverse decision is fully supported by his
formal findings under Guideline J, any errors involving matters relating to Guideline F are harmless. 
1 Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge.  Those
documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider.  See, Directive ¶ E3,1.29. 
2
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3