KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge erred in his findings and conclusions.  Specifically,
he says he filed his 2014 tax returns, that he paid the credit card debt, and that his “bankruptcy is
satisfied.”  Applicant does not identify, and we are unable to find, any evidence in the record that
supports those claims.  On the contrary, he testified that he was not sure about his 2014 tax filing
and that the bankruptcy was dismissed for failing to make payments. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-03569.a1
DATE: 05/15/2018
DATE: May 15, 2018
In Re:
----------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03569
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
January 23, 2017, 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 February 15, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy 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 erred in his findings of
fact and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges unfiled tax returns, a dismissed bankruptcy, and delinquent debts, including 
unpaid judgments and a mortgage loan in foreclosure.  Applicant admitted the SOR allegations.  In
about 2012, he fell behind on his debts because he was supporting family members and paying his
girlfriend’s (now his wife’s) bills.  In 2015, he filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy that was dismissed
when he was unable to make the first payment. 
A homeowners association (HOA) obtained two judgments against Applicant: one for about
$1,200 and the other for about $1,000.  He testified that the judgments were paid through a
garnishment, but provided no documents showing they were satisfied.  He also has a charged-off
credit card debt that remains unresolved.
Applicant failed to file his 2014 state and Federal income tax returns as required. He
provided no proof that he filed those tax returns.  He also acknowledged that he had not filed his tax
returns for 2016, which were due months before the hearing.  If he owes taxes, he sometimes waits
a year before filing the tax returns.  
Applicant had a state tax lien for about $1,200 and owed about $8,000 in past-due state taxes
for 2009-2014. He also owed about $15,000 in past-due Federal taxes for those same years.  He
initially sought assistance from a tax relief organization, but it charged too much.  In December
2017, he made $2,000 payments on both his state and Federal tax indebtedness.  He testified that he
intended to take out a loan from his 401(k) account to pay the tax debts.
Applicant moved in with his wife about three months before the hearing.   He earns annually
about $52,000, receives an annual pension of about $43,000, and estimates his wife earns about
$1,500 a month.  Since they began living together, his finances have improved.  He estimated he has
monthly discretionary income of about $2,000. 
The Judge’s Analysis
2
While Applicant’s actions in providing support to his family and girlfriend were admirable,
these were not circumstances beyond his control.  He did not act responsibly in neglecting his own
finances.  He has not established that his financial problems are being resolved, are under control,
or are unlikely to recur.  His credit report does not reflect any balance is owed on the mortgaged
property, which was sold at auction.  The two HOA judgments were subject to a garnishment and
may be resolved.   His belated payments of $2,000 on his state and Federal tax debts are insufficient
to establish a good-faith effort to resolve those debts.  He did not provide proof of filing his 2014
state and Federal income tax returns.  Although he has begun to resolve his delinquent debts, he
needs to do more to establish a track record of financial responsibility. 
Discussion
In his appeal brief, Applicant essentially contends that the Judge erred in his findings and
conclusions.  First, he contends that he filed his 2014 tax returns, that he paid the credit card debt,
and that his “bankruptcy is satisfied.”  Appeal brief at 1.  Applicant does not identify, and we are
unable to find, any evidence in the record that supports those claims.  On the contrary, he testified
that he was not sure about his 2014 tax filing and that the bankruptcy was dismissed for failing to
make payments. Tr. at 38 and 35-36.  The Judge’s material findings about Applicant’s failure to
provide evidence showing favorable resolution of those matters are based on substantial evidence
or constitute reasonable inferences or conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014).  
Applicant also contends the Judge erred in finding that Applicant’s judgments were not
satisfied.  In his post-hearing submission, Applicant provided two court filings (both with the same
case number) showing that “judgments” from a HOA have been satisfied.  Applicant’s Exhibit (AE)
A.  The case number reflected in that exhibit is close to, but does not match, those reflected in the
credit reports for alleged judgments.  Given the nature of the court filings in AE A, the Judge should
have discussed those documents in making findings about the alleged judgments.   Even if the Judge
erred in failing to discuss those court filings, such an error was harmless because it likely had no
affect on the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013). 
The Judge did note that Applicant likely resolved the alleged judgments though a garnishment. 
Additionally, if the alleged judgments are excluded from consideration, Applicant’s other financial
problems are sufficient to support the Judge’s adverse security clearance determination.  
Applicant further notes that he paid another debt; however, the Judge found in favor of him
on that debt.  He also requests that he be granted another hearing at which he intends to hire an
attorney.  Unless there is a showing that an error occurred that warrants a remand, an applicant is
not entitled to receive a new hearing just so he or she may have another opportunity to present his
or her case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03347 at 3 (App. Bd. May 27, 2016).   In this case,
Applicant has not established an error that warrants a remand. 
3
 Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish the Judge committed any harmful error.  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: James E. Moody     
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy        
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale        
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4