KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: We conclude that the Judge’s material findings are consistent with the record that was
before her. Even if the Judge erred in some of her findings, any such errors are harmless in that
they did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01871.a1
DATE: 07/14/2017
DATE: July 14, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01871
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 July
18, 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 May 8, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative
Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has been employed by various Defense contractors since 2004.  He failed to file
timely state and/or Federal income tax returns for tax years 2011 through 2014.  He stated that he
was unable to do so because of a dispute with his mortgage company over the amount of property
tax he paid on his home.  He stated that he stopped paying on the mortgage when the matter was in
litigation.  In his clearance interview, Applicant stated that he got behind in paying his mortgage
when his wife lost her job and he did not have the money to make payments.  At the hearing he
testified that he was not behind on his mortgage but was being overcharged by the lender. 
Applicant provided no evidence that would show that his tax returns have been filed.  The
lender foreclosed on his house and that account is now closed.  Concerning another SOR debt, the
Judge cited to a document that Applicant submitted pertaining to this debt but noted that the exhibit
does not show that the debt has been paid.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s delinquent debts and tax filings cast doubt upon his current
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Although Applicant’s wife became unemployed,
which was a circumstance beyond his control, there is no clear nexus between that event and
Applicant’s failure to file his tax returns.  Applicant has been aware of his delinquent debts since
2015, but he failed to address them until over a year later, after he had received the SOR.  The Judge
concluded that this did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to pay debts.  In the whole-person
analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s military service and his many years of employment by
Federal contractors.  However, she noted Applicant’s delinquent debts and his failure to have
resolved his tax problems as of the close of the record.  
Discussion
Applicant takes issue with some of the Judge’s findings of fact.  For example, he states that
he has worked for contractors since 1996 rather than 2004, and he denies that his wife’s loss of
income was the principal issue underlying his mortgage problems.  We conclude that the Judge’s
material findings are consistent with the record that was before her.  Even if the Judge erred in some
of her findings, any such errors are harmless in that they did not likely affect the outcome of the
case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00535 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017).  Applicant notes a phrase
in his interview summary to the effect that there is nothing in his background that could lead to
blackmail, etc.  This represents Applicant’s answers to the interviewer’s questions, not the
interviewer’s opinion as to Applicant’s worthiness for a clearance.  In any event, even if an
investigator offered such an opinion it would not bind the DoD in its evaluation of Applicant’s case. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00535, supra, at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017). 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  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, Encl. 2 App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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 E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board