KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Each case must be decided on its own merits.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 09-07478.a1
DATE: 11/24/2010
DATE: November 24, 2010
In Re:
------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-07478
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James W. Green, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 8, 2010, 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
1Applicant’s tax issues were not alleged in the SOR.  
2
requested a decision on the written record.  On August 13, 2010, after considering the record,
Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 erred in her application
of the pertinent mitigating conditions.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the
decision of the Judge. 
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 62-year-old employee
of a Federal contractor.  He owes 19 delinquent debts, which include a court judgment, credit card
debts, and bank loans.  The total amount of Applicant’s delinquent debts is approximately $331,116.
Applicant had owned two retail stores, which experienced significant drops in business.  He used
credit cards to purchase inventory and pay bills.  He also took out a bank loan to pay the interest on
his credit cards. 
Applicant had overdue tax debts for personal income tax and for business tax.  He filed his
2006, 2007, and 2008 Federal income tax returns in August 2009.  He filed state income tax returns
for these same tax years later in 2009.1  In an effort to address his financial problems, Applicant
liquidated some retirement accounts and took out a second mortgage on his home.  He has also
attempted to sell a time-share.  
Applicant did not provide corroboration for his claim that he had made responsible business
decisions.  He did not explain why he had failed to pay his taxes.
Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.  The bankruptcy action was continuing
as of the close of the record.
In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant had taken certain
actions to live within his means, such as working two jobs.  However, she also stated that, insofar
as Applicant’s case was decided on the written record, she did not have the opportunity to question
him about his business practices in order the evaluate the extent to which his economic problems
resulted from causes outside his control or from his own actions.  She stated that his failure to have
filed tax returns undercut his efforts to demonstrate that his business practices had been sound.  She
also noted that while bankruptcy is a legal means of resolving debt, it does not necessarily indicate
a good-faith effort to pay off debts.  Accordingly, she denied Applicant a security clearance.
In support of his appeal Applicant submits evidence not contained in the record, including
documents showing his discharge in bankruptcy, certificates that he had received financial
counseling, and charts showing the monthly sales at his stores.  We cannot consider new evidence
on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the
Appeal Board”).  See also ISCR Case No. 08-05379 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2010).  
3
Applicant cites to a case by the Hearing Office, which he contends supports his case for
reversal of the Judge’s decision.  We give due consideration to this case.  However, each case must
be decided upon its own merits.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  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).  The case cited by Applicant has significant factual differences from
his own, notably in terms of the number and amounts of delinquent debts at issue.  The case cited
by Applicant does not demonstrate that the Judge erred in her application of the mitigating
conditions.  
The record supports a conclusion 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 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan             
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, 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