KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00683.a1
DATE: 10/19/2018
DATE: October 19, 2018
In Re:
--------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00683
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
April 3, 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 July 24, 2018, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request
for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant has been working for a defense contractor since 2012.  The SOR alleged six
delinquent debts totaling about $20,000.  Applicant admitted each of the delinquent debts.  In
analyzing the evidence, the Judge concluded that the debts were either unresolved or there is a lack
of proof of payments towards them.  
In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge failed to take into account his current
financial situation.  He states that a credit report he provided in his post-hearing submission reflects
some of the debts have been charged off and no longer appear on his credit report, which leaves only
two unresolved debts, i.e., a mortgage in foreclosure and a credit union debt.1  He argues such
evidence shows his financial situation is slowly being resolved and demonstrates he is sufficiently
addressing the security concerns.  His argument is unpersuasive.  A Judge could reasonably
conclude that charged-off debts remain an ongoing financial problem.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-
23894 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 6, 2008).2  Moreover, the fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit
report does not establish any meaningful evidence as to the disposition of the debt.  See, e.g., ISCR 
Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015).  Applicant has not identified any harmful error
in the Judge’s decision.  
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.”
1 Applicant’s statement fails to account for an unresolved state tax debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a.
2 The Board has previously noted that a creditor’s choice to charge off a debt for accounting purposes does not
affect the debtor’s obligation to the creditor.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02760 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2016) and ISCR
Case No. 09-01175 at 2, n.1 (App. Bd. May 11, 2010).  
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan       
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale        
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy         
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3