KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E; Guideline K; Guideline M; Guideline J
DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the
evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner
that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 14-05928.a1
DATE: 05/30/2017
DATE: May 30, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-05928
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 15, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E
(Personal Conduct), Guideline K (Handling Protected Information), Guideline M (Use of
Information Technology Systems) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the
written record.  On February 21, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 Guidelines E, K, M,
and J are not at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: Applicant has
worked for a Defense contractor since 2012.  He experienced periods of unemployment during the
years preceding his current job.  He has previously held a security clearance.  His SOR alleges 14
delinquent debts, totaling over $21,000.  He claimed during his interview that his financial problems
were caused by his unemployment.  He has engaged the services of a credit repair company and pays
$600 per month toward satisfaction of his debts, though he did not indicate which of the SOR debts
are being addressed through this service.  He provided no evidence of his current financial status,
budget, financial counseling, or other mitigating efforts.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge commented that Applicant’s financial problems were longstanding.  He concluded
that Applicant has not acted responsibly in regard to his debts and that Applicant’s problems
continue to cast doubt on his judgment and reliability.  In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated
that Applicant did not provide evidence of debt resolution, despite his having had ample time and
opportunity to have addressed his security-significant issues.  Moreover, he provided no
corroboration for his claim that his financial condition is satisfactory.  
Discussion
Applicant claims that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence, citing to such
things as his interrogatory answers, his having hired the debt repair company, etc.  Applicant has
not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Neither 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. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  
Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that he believes supports his effort to obtain a
favorable decision.  We give this case due consideration as persuasive authority.  However, each
case must be decided on its own merits.  Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  Moreover, Hearing Office
decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 15-01416 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. Feb. 15, 2017).
The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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 Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board