ISCR Case No. 17-00683.a1

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

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).

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