KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, including
circumstances outside his control that affected his financial condition, his efforts at debt
resolution, and his character reference.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the
Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the
evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASE NO: 15-01094
DATE: 11/08/2016
DATE: November 8, 2016
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01094
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 23, 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 August 11, 2016, after the hearing, 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; whether the Judge’s application of the mitigating conditions was erroneous; and
whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Before starting his current job, Applicant owned a business that failed, leaving him with a 
substantial amount of delinquent debt.  His debts include over $3,600 owed on a credit card account. 
About two weeks prior to the hearing, Applicant made a first monthly payment of $100 toward
satisfying this debt.  In addition, he owes over $72,000 to the Federal Government in delinquent
payroll taxes.  In 2010, he entered into an installment agreement to pay $650 a month toward
resolving this debt but did not have the available funds to continue.  He has been working with a
financial company to address his tax debts but has yet to set up a new payment plan.  Applicant also
owes nearly $2,000 on another credit card account.  He made his first monthly payment about two
weeks prior to the hearing.  Applicant provided inconsistent evidence as to his monthly budget
surplus.  He testified that he had about $850 at the end of each month, but his written budget showed
a surplus of nearly $3,000.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge resolved two allegations in Applicant’s favor.  However, for the debts described
above, he entered adverse formal findings.  He cited to evidence that Applicant had only recently
begun to address his outstanding credit card debts and that, in eight years time, he had not come to
an agreement with the Federal Government about his tax delinquencies.  
Discussion
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, including
circumstances outside his control that affected his financial condition, his efforts at debt resolution,
and his character reference.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered
all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner
that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2-3 (App.
Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).  Applicant draws our attention to a Hearing Office case that he believes supports
his efforts to obtain a clearance.  We have given this case due consideration as persuasive authority. 
However, Hearing Office cases 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).
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes
when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those
granted access to classified information.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug.
18, 2015).  Timing of debt payments is relevant in evaluating an applicant’s case for mitigation.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01243 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 18, 2015).  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: James E. Moody            
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board