1The Record copy of the Decision is missing page 7.  The Appeal Board obtained the page from the DOHA web
site.
KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence.  Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other
Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 14-03754.a1
DATE: 03/15/2015
DATE: March 19, 2015
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-03754
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq.
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
September 5, 2014, 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 decision
on the written record.  On January 8, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.1  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
2Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation,) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”  
2
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has been employed by a Defense contractor since early 2013.  He has been
constantly employed since 2002.  He has several delinquent debts, for a line of credit, loans, etc.
The Judge found that he had resolved only one of the nine SOR debts.  Applicant has hired a credit
consultant to assist him in correcting inaccuracies in his credit reports.  The firm began addressing
Applicant’s problems in 2012.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant had not presented evidence of having contacted creditors.
He noted that Applicant had supplied no evidence that his financial problems were the result of
circumstances beyond his control, such as an economic downturn, unexpected medical expenses,
etc.2  He also stated that the credit consulting firm did not advise whether it was providing Applicant
with advice or assistance concerning his financial situation.  The Judge stated that the mere fact that
some of Applicant’s debts were beyond the statute of limitations was not a basis for concluding that
he had initiated a good-faith effort to pay them.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge noted that
Applicant had not submitted any sort of character evidence.  He said that the likelihood that the SOR
debts are no longer collectible does not relieve Applicant of his obligation to resolve them.  
Discussion
Applicant cites to his favorable evidence, such as his credit counseling firm and the
successful resolution of one of the debts alleged in the SOR.  The Judge made findings about this
evidence.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence
in the record.  Neither has he made a persuasive argument that the Judge weighed the evidence in
a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10255 at
5 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014). 
Applicant has cited to some Hearing Office decisions in his Appeal Brief.  We give these
decisions due consideration as persuasive authority.  Hearing Office cases are not binding on other
Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00279 at 3 (App. Bd.
Jan. 23, 2015).  The decisions that Applicant has cited do not demonstrate that the Judge erred in
his analysis of Applicant’s circumstances.     
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
3
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 Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board