KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Judge made detailed findings about Applicant’s circumstances and discussed them
appropriately in his Analysis.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-01243.a1
DATE: 6/18/2015
DATE: June 18, 2015
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-01243
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 May
30, 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 hearing. 
On April 3, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has been employed at her current job since September 2011.  She previously held
a clearance in 2004.  She was continuously employed from 2003 until early 2011, when she was laid
off due to failure to successfully complete a job-required examination.  Her severance package
consisted of her salary paid to her during her period of unemployment.  
In 1999, Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which relieved her of about
$22,000 in debt. Applicant’s SOR alleges 22 delinquent debts, one of which was withdrawn as a
duplicate of another.  She also established that she had no remaining liability on a 2007 home
foreclosure.  Applicant’s debts consist mainly of medical expenses, with other allegations pertaining
to a credit card, a utility bill, an educational loan, etc.  The vast majority of Applicant’s debts are
worth less than $300 each.  In her security clearance application, Applicant listed three of her debts,
stating that they originated in 2006 to 2008.  She stated that she would investigate her debts and
begin payments.  In her clearance interview, Applicant also discussed her debts.  However, she did
not begin to address them until she received the SOR.
In July 2014, Applicant paid several of her debts.  She consolidated three debts in a payment
plan whereby she would pay $125 a month beginning in August 2014.  That same month, she
established payment plans for some other debts as well.  Applicant’s bankruptcy was due to her
contemporaneous divorce.  At her parents’ request, she purchased their house but was unable to
make payments, resulting in foreclosure.  Her divorce left her a single mother.  In addition, she
began to experience medical problems.  She had other delinquent accounts that were not addressed
in the SOR.   Applicant has received no financial or credit counseling.  She presented no budget nor
character/work references.
The Judge’s Analysis
Concluding that Applicant’s delinquent debts raised Guideline F security concerns, the Judge
examined her circumstances in light of her burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  In finding that she
had not met that burden, he cited to what he viewed as a lack of responsible action in regard to her
debts.  He also noted that Applicant did not undertake any action to resolve her debts until after she
2
had received the SOR.  He also concluded that, despite Applicant’s belated efforts to pay her debts,
she has yet to demonstrate that she can live within her means.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence in the record, citing
to evidence that she had resolved a number of her debts.  She also argues that the Judge did not take
into account her trustworthiness and honesty, as reflected in her testimony.  The Judge made detailed
findings about Applicant’s circumstances and discussed them appropriately in his Analysis. 
Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the
record.  Neither has she shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01509 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 29, 2015). 
To the extent that Applicant’s argument contains a challenge to the Judge’s evaluation of her
credibility, we are required to give deference to a Judge’s credibility determination.  Directive ¶
E3.1.32.1.  Applicant cites to some Hearing Office cases, to which we give due consideration. 
However, they are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No.  14-03754 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2015).    
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  Timing of debt payments is relevant in
evaluating an applicant’s case for mitigation.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00279 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan.
23, 2015).  “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 Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
4