KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The prior Appeal Board decision cited by Applicant is factually distinguishable from
this case.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-03427.a1
DATE: 02/19/2010
DATE: February 19, 2010
In Re:
----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-03427
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Samuel Bluck, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 10, 2009, 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 November 23, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Rita C.
O’Brien 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 security
clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge found that Applicant is employed as a senior avionics technician for a Defense
contractor.  He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987.  Married, he has two
stepdaughters.  He also has two sons from a previous marriage.
Applicant’s SOR listed two delinquent debts.  The first, $6,412, is owed on a retail store
credit card.  Applicant and his then-girlfriend used the card to purchase a computer.  When the
couple broke up, the girlfriend kept the computer.  The debt became delinquent, and the store sought
payment from Applicant, as he was the primary account holder for the card.  The store obtained a
judgment against Applicant for the balance of the debt, which was unpaid at the close of the record.
In 2003 or 2004 Applicant purchased a motorcycle.  He had reconciled with his first wife,
but, soon after the purchase, he moved out of the house where they were living.  He had not driven
the motorcycle and had made only one payment on it.  He proposed that the seller take back the
motorcycle, with Applicant paying the depreciation as compensation.  However, the seller did not
accept this proposal, instead repossessing the vehicle and selling it, charging Applicant with the
$11,242 deficiency.  Applicant has refused to pay that amount, believing that the seller, by
transporting the vehicle to another state for the sale, did not reasonably mitigate the damages.  This
debt was unpaid at the close of the record.
Applicant has approximately $1,000 left over each month after expenses.  At the close of the
record he had about $500 in savings and $8,300 in his checking account.
In support of his appeal, Applicant has cited a prior decision by the Board, which, he
contends, supports his case for mitigation.  We have considered this case, concluding that it is
factually distinguishable from Applicant’s.  He also cites to cases by the Hearing Office in support
of his appeal.  The Board gives due consideration to these cases as well.  However, each case “must
be decided upon its own merits.”  Directive ¶ E2.2.3.  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).  
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Judge examined the relevant data and
articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the
facts found and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm
3
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 Judge’s adverse 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).
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