KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge made explicit findings about the mitigating evidence cited by Applicant. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 11-03476.a1
DATE: 12/12/2012
DATE: December 12, 2012
In Re:
----------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-03476
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
1The SOR is not dated.  Applicant’s Response to the SOR is dated December 5, 2011.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR)1 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 September 17, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all of the
record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision.  
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant
works for a Defense contractor.  He has held a security clearance since 1996.   He served in the
Army, the National Guard, and the Reserves from 1996 until 2007.  He was deployed to combat
zones several times during his military service.  He is married, and his wife is expecting a child.  He
has another child from a previous marriage.  
As a child, Applicant was abandoned by his parents and became a ward of the state.  He lived
with about 10 foster families until he was 18 and joined the military.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for a state tax lien, an apartment rental agreement,
medical expenses, an automobile loan, etc.  Some of these debts have been paid, though after
Applicant’s receipt of the SOR or after the hearing.  The Judge cited to inconsistent statements
Applicant made about some of his debts.  For example, concerning the car loan, Applicant advised
in an interrogatory response that the car had been totaled and the debt paid off.  At the hearing, he
testified that the loan was not his and had been obtained in his name due to identity theft.  In an
interrogatory response he averred that he had paid the tax lien as of July 2011.  Documentary
evidence later demonstrated that the lien had actually been paid in February 2012.  He also provided
inconclusive information about a $367 debt that he described either as an overdue library book or
a fine for neglecting to register a car.  The Judge found that Applicant had failed to corroborate some
of his statements about his efforts to address his debts.  He did note that two of the debts alleged in
the SOR had been removed from Applicant’s credit report.
Applicant enjoys a good reputation for his job performance.  He is certified as a security
information specialist.  The Judge noted that the letters commending Applicant’s job performance
used the same wording, although the letterheads, dates, and contact information differ.  The Judge
found that the identical wording of the letters reduced their probative weight.
In the Analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s inconsistent and false statements, his lack of
corroborating information, and the relative recency of his repayments despite the financial ability
to have done so long before.  Indeed, the Judge stated that Applicant’s four repaid debts had been
3
satisfied only after he had received the SOR.  Under the circumstances, the Judge concluded that
Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his evidence that (1) some of his debts
had been repaid; (2) two of the debts had been removed from Applicant’s credit report; (3) he had
served his country in combat zones; and (4) he had undergone a difficult childhood.  Applicant also
cited to his character evidence and to the lack of evidence of security violations or of trouble with
the law.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 09-07219 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012).  The Judge made explicit findings about the
evidence Applicant has cited and discussed much of this evidence in his Analysis.  Applicant has
not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence.  
Applicant’s brief cites to some Hearing Office cases which, he contends, support his efforts
to obtain a clearance.  We have given these cases due consideration.  However, Hearing Office
decisions are not mandatory authority for other Hearing Office Judges or the Appeal Board.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-08099 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 14, 2012).  Moreover, Applicant’s case has
significant differences from those cited in the brief, notably the Judge’s conclusions about
Applicant’s credibility.  The cited cases do not demonstrate that the Judge erred in his adverse
decision.
The Judge’s 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.”
Order
The Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board