KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00192.a1
DATE: 09/21/2018
DATE: September 21, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00192
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James Lombardo, Personal Representative
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
February 21, 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).  On April 27, 2017, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) amended the SOR to add additional allegations under
Guideline F.  Department Counsel requested a hearing.  On July 26, 2018, after the hearing, DOHA
Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Rather, it contains statements about the status of the debts, including that creditors have failed to
validate debts, issued Forms 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt), or refused payment due to the
expiration of the statute of limitations.  However, even if debts have been paid, removed, or rendered
uncollectable by operations of law, a Judge may still consider the underlying circumstances of an
applicant’s financial difficulties in evaluating whether the has demonstrated good judgment and
reliability.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-02246 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2017).  In this case, the
Judge’s finding that Applicant had simply stopped paying his debts, and his comments about a
paucity of evidence of debt resolution, support his overall adverse conclusion.
The Board does not review cases de novo.  The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case
is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. 
Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying
Applicant a security clearance is sustainable. 
2
 Order
The Decision is Affirmed.
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, 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
3