KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision to find it sustainable..  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-02138.a1
DATE: 02/11/2016
DATE: February 11, 2016
In Re:
--------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-02138
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
November 12, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
2
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On October 30, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has several delinquent debts for student loans and phone services.  He attributes
his debts to a six-month period of unemployment and to medical bills due to an accident, although
he did not specify the date upon which the accident occurred.  He contends that he has paid three
of the alleged debts and is making payments on another.  Applicant earns about $4,000 after taxes
and has an equal amount in savings.  He has between $800 and $1,200 in discretionary income.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted Applicant’s contention that some of his debts were no longer mentioned on
his credit report.  However, the Judge stated that this fact alone does not show that the debt had been
actually satisfied.  He also noted an absence of corroborating evidence for Applicant’s contention
that he was making payments on one of the debts.  The Judge concluded that Applicant’s
presentation was not sufficient to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation.
Discussion
Applicant cites to evidence of his job termination that resulted in a period of unemployment,
to his hearing testimony, and to evidence regarding the circumstances underlying his debts.  He
draws our attention to a Fact Finding Report (Applicant Exhibit B), in which his state’s Board of
Labor determined that his job termination was not misconduct such as to deny him eligibility for
unemployment compensation.  He states that the Judge did not give this matter proper weight in
evaluating the effect of his unemployment on his financial condition.  
In fact, the Judge cleared Applicant on an allegation concerning his job termination, and he
made findings about Applicant’s unemployment.  However, he also found that Applicant had
incurred his debts before he lost his job.  These finding are consistent with the Judge’s overall
adverse decision.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record.  Neither has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2015).  
Applicant cites to a Hearing Office decision which he believes supports his case for a
clearance.  Each case must be decided upon its own merits, and Hearing Office decisions are not
3
binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03747
at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015).  
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors.  We need not agree with
a Judge’s decision to find it sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-03301 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7,
2012).  “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 Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett               
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board