KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Although Applicant disagrees with the weight the Judge assigned to certain pieces of
evidence, he has not demonstrated that the Judge’s analysis is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Applicant points to other decisions by the Hearing Office, which he argues support his
request for a favorable determination.  The Board gives due consideration to these cases. 
However, each case must be decided upon its own merits.   Moreover, Hearing Office decisions
are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-08820.a1
DATE: 03/03/2009
DATE: March 3, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-08820
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 6, 2008, DOHA 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 December 19, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H.
Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant
to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  Applicant is a 53 year-old employee
of a Defense contractor.   In 2004 he petitioned for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which was dismissed in
2005.  Applicant had filed for Chapter 7 protection in 2000, in which he discharged debts of $42,467.
Since his discharge in bankruptcy, Applicant had amassed a substantial amount of delinquent debt,
for such things as a salary overpayment, consumer purchases, income taxes, etc.  The total amount
of debts alleged in the SOR, and for which the Judge found against Applicant, exceeds $150,000.
Applicant sent letters to some of his creditors, seeking to establish a repayment plan.  However, the
Judge noted that Applicant had mailed the letters on the day of the hearing.  Applicant also took
some on-line courses in financial management, although he took them within three days of the
hearing.  In the Analysis section of his decision, the Judge stated that Applicant “has not made a
good faith effort to resolve his current overdue debts.  I cannot conclude that Applicant has acted
responsibly under these circumstances because he only attempted to contact most of these creditors
on the day of the hearing[.]” Decision at 6.   
The Board has considered all the arguments contained in Applicant’s brief, evaluating them
in light of the record as a whole.  Although Applicant appears to disagree with the weight which the
Judge assigned to certain pieces of evidence, e.g., documents regarding disputed debts, he has not
demonstrated that the Judge’s analysis is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See ISCR Case
No. 07-07144 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 2008).  In support of his appeal, Applicant points to other
decisions by the Hearing Office, which he argues support his request for a favorable determination.
The Board gives due consideration to these cases.  However, each case “must be decided upon its
own merits.”  Directive ¶ E2.2.3.  Moreover, Hearing Office decisions are binding neither on other
Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board.  See ISCR Case No. 06-24121 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2008).
In light of the record as a whole, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found
and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision, both as regards the mitigating conditions and
the whole-person factors.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  The
3
Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility
for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 7.  See also Department of the
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted
only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security’”). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin              
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields              
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board