KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s financial situation raises security concerns, and he had the burden of
presenting evidence to demonstrate extenuation or mitigation sufficient to warrant a favorable
security clearance decision. The Judge explained why the evidence Applicant provided was
insufficient to overcome all the Government’s security concerns. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-00936.a1
DATE: 10/25/2018
DATE: October 25, 2018
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-00936
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 27, 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 26, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 in his appeal: whether the Judge erred in her findings
of fact and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 
Consistent with the following, we affirm the adverse decision.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact  
Applicant, who is 53 years old, has held a security clearance since 1999.  He is single,
graduated from college, and has an adult child.  He has been employed as a Government contractor
for about 22 years and has served in hostile areas overseas. 
The SOR alleged that Applicant twice filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions that were later
dismissed; that he has a Federal tax lien for about $101,000; that his home was foreclosed in 2016;
and that he had other delinquent debts totaling about $42,000.  He admitted the majority of the
allegations.  He claims some medical bills were paid and disputes the tax lien and second
bankruptcy.    
Applicant attributes his financial problems to the failure of a consulting business that he
started in 2006 and ended about four years later.  In 2010, he decided to work overseas as a
contractor with a salary of about $275,000.  He was terminated from that job in late 2012.  He then
found it difficult to find employment.  He took low-paying jobs until he found steady employment
in the spring of 2016.  
Applicant filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2014 and 2015.  His first bankruptcy petition
claimed liabilities of about $436,000, while his second claimed about $349,000.  The first
bankruptcy was dismissed when he missed a filing deadline.  The second was dismissed due to his
failure to make required payments.  He only made those payments for seven or eight weeks.  
A Federal tax lien was filed against Applicant in 2014.  He did not file taxes while working
abroad and had no income taxes withheld from his pay for 2010-2012.  He disputes the amount
owed, believing he owes about $35,000 for 2010 due to exemptions for earnings abroad.  However,
he is not certain of the amount owed.  In his post-hearing submission, he provided a 2018 client
agreement with a tax relief service, but has not resolved this debt with the IRS.
Because Applicant’s bankruptcies were dismissed, he could not stop his house from going
into foreclosure.  He does not know if he owes a deficiency from the sale of the home.  There is an
outstanding home equity loan of about $9,200.  He has a charged-off credit card account for nearly
2
$7,200 that was listed in the bankruptcy but remains unresolved.  He has a past-due time share
account for about $2,100.  He bought the time share in the early 2000s and was told it would be
given back.  He has done nothing to resolve the time share account.  
Applicant has not paid three medical bills totaling about $20,000 that arose when he was
attacked in 2014.  He had no insurance at the time and was in the hospital for about two months. 
He recently contacted the police to obtain a police report to show the attack occurred and those debts
may be mitigated.  The SOR also alleged seven parking tickets totaling about $700.  Applicant paid
five of them for a total of about $275 and a couple of days before the hearing paid another for $275. 
  
Applicant earns about $98,000 annually and supports his child who is attending college.  He
has a savings account and retirement account, but does not know how much money is in either of
them.  He submitted a number of character letters from colleagues and friends who have known him
for more than 20 years and who attest to his dedication and service in a combat zone.   He provided
several certificates and recommendations.  A witness also testified to Applicant’s dedication in a
combat zone.
The Judge’s Analysis
Applicant’s financial problems are the result of unemployment and underemployment after
his termination of employment.  He disputes the tax lien and just hired a service to investigate what
he might owe.  He paid a few parking tickets, but has not acted responsibly in addressing his debts. 
He admitted that he has not done anything regarding a majority of the debt.  There is no clear
indication that his financial problems are under control.  He does not have an approved IRS payment
plan and has not established a track record of payments.  He has not presented sufficient evidence
to mitigate the financial security concerns.   
Discussion
1.  Alleged Errors in the Findings of Fact
Applicant’s appeal brief has 26 paragraphs listing alleged errors in the findings of fact.1 
Some of the alleged errors involve matters that are not significant factors in the case.  For example,
he contends the Judge incorrectly found that he was 53 years old when, in fact, he is 52 and the
Judge found he departed for an overseas job in 2010 instead of 2009.  Such errors are harmless
because they did not likely influence the outcome of the case.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-04176
at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 18, 2012).  
1 Applicant’s assignments of error are somewhat confusing because he uses the term “Government” when he
is apparently referring to the Judge and also uses that term at other times when he is referring to the Government as a
party in the proceeding.  To avoid confusion, this decision will use the term “Judge” when it is clear that is who
Applicant is referencing in his appeal.
3
 Many of the alleged errors involve Applicant’s assertion that the Judge omitted, neglected
to mention, or refused to address certain matters in her findings of fact.  In this regard, we note that
a Judge is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, which is a practical impossibility.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01500 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015).  Furthermore, Applicant’s assertions
that the Judge omitted certain facts are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record.  Id.  Nor are the alleged omissions sufficient to show
the Judge’s findings or conclusions were arbitrary or capricious. 
In some of the alleged errors, Applicant has inaccurately characterized the Judge’s findings. 
For example, he contends the Judge erred in finding his financial problems were due to his
consulting business lasting only four years.  He argues that finding “is pure conjecture and is
categorically false.”  Appeal Brief at 3.  He later states that his financial problems arose from being
unjustly terminated from an overseas job.  His argument, however, is unpersuasive because it
focuses on a single sentence in the decision and fails to consider that sentence in its context.  The
Appeal Board does not review individual sentences in isolation, but rather considers the Judge’s
decision in its entirety to determine what findings the Judge made and what conclusions the Judge
reached.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03429 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2018).  Here, the Judge made
findings about the failure of Applicant’s consulting business and the termination of his overseas
employment in the same paragraph, which addressed the reasons for his financial problems.  In her
analysis, she also stated, “Applicant’s debts are the result of unemployment and underemployment
after termination of employment and contracts that did not materialize.”  Decision at 6.  A full
reading of the decision shows the Judge considered the job termination as a reason for Applicant’s
financial problems.  As another example, Applicant also challenges the Judge’s finding that he
“disputed the second bankruptcy.” He claims he was not disputing that the bankruptcy was filed, but
was disputing the circumstances surrounding its dismissal.  Decision at 2.  The challenged finding
does not address the bankruptcy’s dismissal, but correctly indicated that Applicant disputed the
second bankruptcy allegation when he answered the SOR.   
Some of Applicant’s challenged findings, which he claims are false, are supported by record
evidence.  For example, he contends the Judge erred in finding he earned about $275,000 annually
for the three years of his overseas employment.  However, he testified as follows:
[Department Counsel]: While you were [overseas] before you were fired, you made
-- over the course of three-and-a-half years, you made over $1 million.
[Applicant]:  I don’t know if it was that much, but it’s -- because the $275,000 was
average.  I was there for three years.  So, it wasn’t a million.  It was maybe three-
quarters.2
Applicant also claims the Judge’s erred in finding that he made payments towards his second
bankruptcy for seven to eight weeks before defaulting.  He contends that he made seven to eight
2 Tr. at 80-81.
4
payments over several months.  In his testimony, however, he specifically stated that he made those
payments for “seven to eight weeks.”3  
Applicant does point out some errors in the Judge’s findings regarding the SOR allegations. 
For example, he challenges the Judge’s finding that he had no taxes withheld from his pay for the
years he worked overseas, i.e., 2010, 2011 and 2012.  He contends his testimony clearly shows he
was subject to tax withholding in 2011 and 2012.  During his testimony, Applicant stated that his
overseas employer “had [ ] us to be exempt from withholding, so they did not withhold any taxes
for the 2010 tax year.”  Tr. at 45.  He further testified that he did not file his tax returns for 2010-
2012 while working overseas.  Tr. at 46.  Based upon such testimony, it appears the Judge inferred
that non-withholding practice continued for the entire period of Applicant’s overseas employment.
However, Applicant later testified that, when he filed his tax returns for 2011 and 2012, “I was
entitled to a return (sic), because I overpaid the taxes . . . .”  Tr. at 47-48.  Additionally, regarding
the charged-off debt for about $9,200, Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding this was a
deficiency on a home equity loan that resulted from the foreclosure of his house.  He contends that
this was a credit card debt.  While Applicant’s testimony regarding the nature of this debt is less than
clear, he did state more than once this was a credit card debt that has not been paid.  Tr. at 49-50 and
98-100.  Even though the Judge may have erred in her findings regarding Applicant’s tax
withholdings for 2011 and 2012 and the nature of the $9,200 debt, such errors were harmless
because they did not likely affect the outcome of the case.   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-04176 at
3.  In this regard, we note that Applicant has not shown the Judge erred in concluding that he had
not resolved either the Federal tax lien or the $9,200 debt.   
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security
concern 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 has not cited to any harmful error in the Judge’s findings.  
2.  Alleged Errors in the Judge’s Analysis
Applicant contends the Judge improperly applied the findings of another case in his decision. 
He is referring to an Appeal Board decision that the Judge cited in her analysis (ISCR Case No. 11-
05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012)) for the proposition that the security concerns under Guideline
F are broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly compromise classified information
to raise money, but also encompass concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other
qualities essential for protecting classified information.  From our review of the decision, there is
no basis for concluding that the Judge somehow misapplied the cited case.  She merely cited it for
the above stated proposition.
Applicant also contends the Judge ignored record evidence in her analysis of the case.  For
example, he argues the Judge failed to address his claims that he was unjustly terminated from his
overseas job and that he received faulty advice from an attorney that led to the dismissal of the
3 Tr. at 45. 
5
second bankruptcy.  None of his arguments, either when considered individually or in total, are
sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence or enough
to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017).    
Additionally, Applicant argues that he does not pose a security risk and there is no evidence 
that he committed a security violation in his entire career.  The Federal Government must be able
to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in persons granted access to classified information. 
Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 511 n. 6 (1980).  Security clearance decisions are not an exact
science, but rather involve predictive judgments about an applicant’s security eligibility in light of
the applicant’s past conduct and present circumstances.  Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528-529 (1988).  The Federal Government need not wait until an applicant mishandles or fails to
safeguard classified information before it can deny or revoke access to classified information based
on an applicant’s conduct or circumstances that raise security concerns even in the absence of
security violations.  A history of financial difficulties raises security concerns.  Directive, Encl. 2,
App. A ¶¶ 18 and 19.  See also ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 and ISCR Case No. 96-0454 at 2 (App.
Bd. Feb. 7, 1997) (discussing the negative security significance of a history of excessive
indebtedness or recurring financial difficulties).  In this case, Applicant’s financial situation raises
security concerns, and he had the burden of presenting evidence to demonstrate extenuation or
mitigation sufficient to warrant a favorable security clearance decision.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The
Judge explained why the evidence Applicant provided was insufficient to overcome all the
Government’s security concerns.  See, e.g.,ISCR Case No. 07-09966 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 25, 2008). 
Given the record evidence in this case, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion that
Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion so as to warrant a favorable security clearance
decision under the clearly consistent with the national interest standard.  Directive, Encl. 2, App. A
¶¶ 2(a)-2(c).  Applicant has not demonstrated any harmful error in the Judge’s analysis.
3.  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Applicant asserts that he was “hindered by ineffective assistance of counsel” at the hearing.
Appeal Brief at 1 and 14.  He claims his attorney failed to introduce certain evidence and perform
other duties.  The ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine is not applicable in DOHA proceedings. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-06703 at 2 (App. Bd. May 4. 2012).
4.  Conclusion
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.’”  Egan, at 528. 
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.”
6
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: James F. Duffy              
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
7