KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. 
Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. 
Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASE NO: 15-00633.a1
DATE: 08/08/2016
DATE: August 8, 2016
In Re:
---------------- 
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-00633
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 
August 7, 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 decision
on the written record.  On May 25, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 failed to consider all of
the evidence in the record; whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous; and whether
the Judge’s adverse decision as arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the
following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant’s SOR alleged three delinquent debts: one for $149, one for a little over $3,800,
and one for over $27,700.  The Judge found that Applicant had resolved the first two.  However, he
found that the third one was still ongoing and that she did not corroborate her claims that she had
been trying to settle it.  Applicant attributed her poor financial condition to her husband’s
underemployment and to family medical expenses.  
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate concerns arising from the large,
ongoing debt.  He noted circumstances outside her control that affected Applicant’s financial
condition but concluded that she had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to this debt.  In
the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s good work references.  However, he stated
that any effort at resolving this debt was not supported by anything beyond her own “averments.” 
Decision at 4.
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record, citing
to her letters of recommendation, her having obtained financial counseling, etc.  Applicant has not
rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 14-05795 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  She also argues that the Judge did not properly
weigh evidence that was favorable to her, for example her having resolved two of the SOR debts. 
However, Applicant is, in effect, arguing for an alternative interpretation of the record, which is not
enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  Id. at 3.  
Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that she contends supports her effort to get a
clearance.  We have given this case due consideration as persuasive authority.  However, Hearing
Office decisions are not 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).  Each case must be decided on its own
merits. 
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.”
2
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan            
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3