KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In 2016, Applicant stopped making the payments on two mortgages.  She then
proceeded to purchase a second home for $250,000, acquired about $38,000 in credit card debt
for repairs to the new home, and purchased a used luxury car for about $18,000.  She claimed
she thought her cousin was making the mortgage payments, although she acknowledged her
cousin never contributed before and had no plan to pay them. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 17-03971.a1
DATE: 03/15/2019
DATE: March 15, 2019
In Re:
---------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-03971
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
December 15, 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 November 28, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Jennifer Goldstein 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’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
Applicant is a 64-year-old employee of a government contractor.  She was granted a security
clearance in 2007.  She admitted receiving a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2017, but denied two
mortgage accounts alleged in the SOR.  
In 2005, Applicant purchased a $367,000 home jointly with her cousin who did not have
good credit.  Applicant lived in the home with her cousin who promised to refinance the mortgage
solely in her name when she was able to do so, but that did not occur.  In 2006, the purchase loan
was refinanced into first and second mortgages with Applicant as the primary borrower on both
mortgages and her cousin as a cosigner.  In 2014, Applicant gave her cousin two-years notice that
she would move out and would no longer pay the mortgages.  Her cousin, who received social
security disability payments, never contributed to the mortgage payments.    
In 2016, Applicant stopped making the payments on both mortgages.  She then proceeded
to purchase a second home for $250,000, acquired about $38,000 in credit card debt for repairs to
the new home, and purchased a used luxury car for about $18,000.  She claimed she thought her
cousin was making the mortgage payments, although she acknowledged her cousin never
contributed before and had no plan to pay them. 
From August 2016 to June 2017, Applicant’s cousin failed to make the mortgage payments 
After the mortgages fell into default, Applicant tried to negotiate a deed in lieu of foreclosure on the
first home, which was unsuccessful. She was advised to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Her bankruptcy
petition listed over $640,000 in secured claims and over $38,000 in unsecured loans.  The
bankruptcy docket page showed the trustee abandoned over $487,000 in secured claims on the first
home.  The first home was removed from the bankruptcy, foreclosed, and sold at auction.  Applicant
claims she has no further liability regarding the two mortgages on the first home.  Her credit report
reflects those two mortgage have zero balances.  
Applicant has participated in financial counseling.  She estimated her annual income for
2017 to be over $80,000.  She is current on two credit cards.  
2
Applicant’s financial problems were the result of her vacating the property she owned with
her cousin.  She had no realistic expectation her cousin would make the mortgage payments.  She
chose to abandon her financial obligation.  She has not shown that her financial problems were due
to circumstances beyond her control or that she acted responsibly under the circumstances.  Her
recent financial decisions cast doubt on her judgment.  
    
Discussion
Applicant’s appeal brief contains a document that is not included in the record.  The Appeal
Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
 
Applicant contends the Judge did not review all of the facts in her case.  She argues that she
did not abandon the first home and that her cousin agreed to refinance the property and could afford
to do so.  She also states that she tried to negotiate with the lender when she learned the mortgage
loans were in default.  She notes she is not responsible for any balance on those mortgage loans and
she purchased the car because her old car was not worth repairing.  She argues she does not live
outside her means.  Her arguments, however, are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor 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.
17-02488 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2018).  Based upon the record evidence, the Judge’s conclusion
that Applicant’s poor financial decisions cast doubt on her judgment is sustainable.  Applicant also
indicates that the loss of her security clearance is having a negative impact on her, but the adverse
consequences arising from an unfavorable clearance decision are not relevant considerations in
evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App.
Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). 
Applicant has not established that 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.”
3
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
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