KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends the Judge erred in making certain findings of fact. Specifically,
Applicant notes that the Judge found that the debts in SOR 1.a and 1.c were unresolved when a
credit report reflects both of those accounts were paid. Applicant also notes the Judge incorrectly
listed the amount of the debt in the SOR 1.e, i.e, listing it as $8,097, instead of $1,523 as
reflected in the SOR. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-05243.a1
DATE: 07/11/2017
DATE: July 11, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-05243
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
March 23, 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 hearing. 
On April 28, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein 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 her 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 a 47-year-old employee of a Federal contractor.  He is married with three
children.  He retired from the military after 23 years of service. 
Applicant received a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge in 2007.  In addition to the Chapter
13 bankruptcy, the SOR also alleged that Applicant had eight debts totaling about $16,000.  He
attributed his current financial problems to his wife’s hospitalization for an undisclosed period and
his unemployment for about a year following his military retirement in 2013.     
Credit reports document Applicant’s financial delinquencies.  He failed to document he
resolved five of the eight delinquent debts.  Following his bankruptcy, he failed to change his
practice of spending funds he did not have.  He recently procured a loan for a $19,000 motorcycle
and has not demonstrated that future financial problems are unlikely. 
 
Discussion
Applicant contends the Judge erred in making certain findings of fact.  Specifically, he notes
that the Judge found that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.c were unresolved when a credit report
reflects both of those accounts were paid.  See, Entries 1 and 13 in Government Exhibit 6.   He also
notes the Judge incorrectly listed the amount of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.e, i.e., listing it as $8,097,
instead of $1,523 as reflected in the SOR.  When these errors are viewed as a whole, we are unable
to determine that they are harmless.  We conclude the best resolution is to remand the case to the
Judge to correct the errors and issue a new decision in accordance with the Directive.  Other issues
raised by Applicant are not ripe for consideration.  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