KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge erred in finding that Applicant was married twice and that she has been
employed full time since June 2015. The best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge
for additional processing as appropriate. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-07869.a1
DATE: 06/30/2017
DATE: June 30, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-07869
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
February 8, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On April 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 the findings of
fact and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
Consistent with the following, we remand the decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
Applicant is 43 years old, has been married twice, and has two children.  “She has been
employed by a Federal contractor since January 2015, pending the outcome of her clearance
application.  She has also worked full time for the U.S. Postal Service since June 2015.”  Decision
at 2.
The SOR alleges 16 delinquent debts totaling more than $26,000.  Applicant admitted 15 of
the SOR allegations and denied a state tax lien of $61.  In her Answer to the SOR, she provided
documentation showing proof of payments towards three debts, including payment of the state tax
lien of $61.  She provided no other documentation.  In her Answer to the SOR, she repeatedly stated 
that she has been in contact with creditors to make arrangements to resolve the debts, but offered
no corroboration.   The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion.  
Discussion
In the appeal brief, Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding that she was married twice
and that she has been employed full time since June 2015.  Documents in the File of Relevant
Material support her contentions.   The summary of her background interview reflects that she was
a part-time employee of the Postal Service in 2015.  Additionally, her security clearance application
reflects her employment with the Federal contractor was contingent on her obtaining a security
clearance and that she has been married once.  While the error regarding her marital history was a
harmless error because it most likely had no affect on the ultimate decision, we cannot draw that
same conclusion regarding the employment status error.  The Judge incorrectly indicated twice in
the findings of fact that Applicant was gainfully employed since June 2015.  In his analysis, the
Judge noted Applicant expressed her intent to pay all of the debts as soon as she is gainfully
employed, but produced no evidence of following through on that intent.  Given these
circumstances, the Board concludes the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge for
additional processing as appropriate.
Applicant raised other appeal issues, but it would be premature to address them at this time. 
She also provided a number of documents that she did not previously submit to the Judge for
consideration.  We cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  
Order
The Decision is REMANDED.    
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