KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited. 
However, each case must be decided on its own merits.  This case is not sufficient to undermine
the Judge’s decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-05959.a1
DATE: 04/06/2016
DATE: April 6, 2016
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-05959
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 July
10, 2015, 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 January 28, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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’s financial problems go back many years.  For example, in the early 1990s, he
drove on a suspended license and failed to appear in court in response to warrants.  His wages were
garnished to pay child support arrears, and in 1996, Applicant turned in a truck he had purchased
only 24 hours previously, resulting in a $9,000 deficiency.  In addition, Applicant presented
evidence that a tenant had damaged one of the houses he owned.  
His SOR lists five debts, two of which the Judge resolved in Applicant’s favor.  The three
that the Judge found against him included two default judgments pertaining to the damaged rental
property mentioned above and a foreclosure on a time share.  These three debts were outstanding
at the close of the record.  In addition to the SOR debts, Applicant has delinquent mortgage accounts
and medical bills that had been sent to collection.  Applicant is separated from his third wife and is
supporting two minor children.  Applicant’s current supervisor describes his work performance as
“phenomenal.”  Decision at 4.  He enjoys a good reputation for responsibility and trustworthiness.
The Judge’s Analysis
As stated above, the Judge resolved two of the five SOR debts in Applicant’s favor.  For the
remaining three, she concluded that he had not submitted enough evidence to demonstrate
rehabilitation.  She stated that he does not have a “concrete understanding of his financial
responsibilities and has not sufficiently addressed his delinquent debts in the SOR.”  Id. at 6-7.  The
Judge cited to evidence that some of Applicant’s difficulties may have arisen from circumstances
outside his control.  However, she concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action in
regard to his debts.  She stated that he ignored his problems, spent money that he did not have, and 
set up no payment plans.  The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence in the record.  Among
other things, he cites to his having resolved two of the SOR debts, his professional reputation, the
circumstances underlying his debts, etc.  The Judge made findings about the evidence that Applicant
2
has cited and addressed it in her Analysis.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec.
4, 2015).  We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited.  However,
each case must be decided on its own merits.  This case is not sufficient to undermine the Judge’s
decision.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015).  The Judge’s whole
person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that she considered the totality
of the evidence in reaching her decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 9,
2015). 
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
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: William S. Fields          
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3