KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation
for the decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00238.a1
DATE: 10/25/2017
DATE: October 25, 2017     
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00238
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 1, 2017, 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 hearing.  On August 10, 2017, after the hearing, 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 his formal
findings and whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s
favorable findings under Guideline J were not raised as an issue on appeal.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm.
Applicant, who is 53 years old, has been an employee of a Federal contractor since 2013. 
He does not have a full-time job, but works on an as needed basis.  He is awaiting full-time
employment with another Federal contractor.  He has never been married and has two adult children,
ages 21 and 34.
The SOR alleged that Applicant had delinquent debts and failed to file timely his Federal
income tax return for 2013.  In the Statement of the Case, the Judge noted that he granted
Department Counsel’s motion to withdraw the allegation involving the $148 delinquent debt in SOR
¶ 1.c.  In the Formal Findings, the  Judge found for Applicant on a judgment and two other debts,
found both for and against Applicant on the withdrawn allegation in SOR ¶ 1.c, and found against
Applicant on the Federal income tax filing delinquency.  The Judge made no formal finding as to
SOR ¶ 1.b, which alleged Applicant was past due over $9,900 on a child/family support obligation
that had a total balance of about $32,700.   
In the findings of fact regarding the child/family support obligation, the Judge stated that
Applicant resolved a child support case brought by the mother of one of his children, but another
case brought by another mother had an outstanding balance of about $22,000 at the time of the
hearing.  Although Applicant had made payments in 2017 – one for over $9,000 and others for
smaller amounts – toward the remaining child support obligation, the Judge found that debt was
longstanding, continuous, and not mitigated.  The Judge specifically noted that both of Applicant’s
children are now adults.  In his analysis, the Judge also concluded the mitigating conditions did not
apply to the child support debt. 
In the findings of fact regarding the 2013 tax filing delinquency, the Judge stated that
Applicant testified that he filed that tax return approximately a year late and paid off a tax debt of
about $3,000 for that year.  The Judge also noted that Applicant did not offer an adequate
explanation for the tax filing delinquency, “except to say he was struggling with alcohol and drug
addiction issues, and not acting responsibly around that time.”  Decision at 4. The Judge, however,
acknowledged that Applicant stated he turned around his life and has been sober for over four years. 
In his appeal, Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding against him on the withdrawn
allegation in SOR ¶ 1.c.  Reading the Judge’s decision as a whole, we conclude that this was a
typographical error in the formal findings and the Judge intended to find solely for Applicant on
SOR ¶ 1.c and against Applicant on SOR ¶ 1.b.  We further conclude that this error is harmless. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-02802 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2007)(typographical errors in the formal
findings were harmless).  See also, ISCR Case No. 91-1449 at n.2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 1993)(“While
we find the formal findings inconsistent [with the text of the decision], the inconsistency is not such
error as requires remand.  We read the decision in its entirety to discern the Judge’s meaning, and
it appears clear that the inconsistencies identified are the result of typographical error in the formal
findings.”) and ISCR Case No. 04-03795 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 25, 2007)(inconsistency between
formal findings and decretal paragraph is harmless typographical error).  Additionally, we note that
Applicant recognized this was a typographical error by stating, “In reading the Formal Findings of
Decision (dated 8/10/17) I am led to believe the Judge meant Subparagraph 1(b) (not 1.c) which
refers to indebtedness specifically child support.”  Appeal Brief at 1.
Applicant also contends the Judge erred in using the plural term “credit card deficiencies”
in describing the alleged debts.  Applicant notes that SOR ¶ 1.c, which was withdrawn, alleged the
only credit card deficiency.  We find this apparent error to be harmless because it likely had no
affect on the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01494 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2016). 
The Judge’s decision is clear that he concluded only two SOR allegations – the child support and
tax filing delinquencies – were not mitigated. 
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments amount to a challenge of the Judge’s weighing of
the evidence and his whole-person analysis.  Applicant cites to such matters as his efforts to resolve
the child support deficiency, his having only once filed his taxes late, his payment of the tax debt
for 2013, and his current financial situation.  The Judge made findings about many of those matters. 
It is well established that a party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an
ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the
Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01652 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 7, 2017).  Moreover, we
conclude the Judge’s whole-person analysis satisfies the requirements of the Directive in that the
Judge evaluated Applicant’s security-significant circumstances in light of the entirety of the record
evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015).  
    
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: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy            
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board