KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that she believes supports her effort to obtain
a clearance. However, each case must be decided on its own merits, and Hearing Office
decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-01826.a1
DATE: 06/19/2017
DATE: June 19, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-01826
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 25, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline
E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On March 30, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 failed to consider all of
the record evidence, resulting in a decision that 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’s SOR lists 20 delinquent debts.  Some of the debts were duplicates of others,
some had been paid or settled, and some were apparently the result of identity theft.  However, the
Judge entered adverse findings regarding a majority of the remaining debts, totaling about $14,000. 
The Judge noted that Applicant had first been placed on notice of her financial problems during her
clearance interview.  Though she asserted that she had begun to address her debts as soon as she
became aware of them, it appears that she devoted most of her attention to having debts removed
from her credit report rather than investigating their legitimacy.  She acknowledged that she had
done nothing after her interview because she had to save up the money with which to pay the debts
that were hers.
Applicant’s husband became gravely ill in late 2010 and was therefore unable to work. 
Applicant divorced him five years later.  Two other close relatives died in 2014.  Applicant earns
about $69,000 a year and has about $500 left over each month.  On the other hand, she has no
savings and no retirement fund.   
After the hearing, Applicant hired an attorney who pursued legal action against two of the
credit bureaus.  As a result, one of the bureaus stated by letter that “it appeared that Applicant may
have been the victim of identity theft, which contributed to disputed information in her credit files.” 
Decision at 3.  The bureau attached a copy of Applicant’s credit report, but Applicant did not submit
it in her post-hearing documents.
Applicant provided no evidence of financial counseling or of a budget.  Neither did she
submit character references or work evaluations.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge cleared Applicant regarding seven of the debts alleged in the SOR, noting
evidence of duplication, fraud, etc.  He noted, however, that some debts were not resolved until after
Applicant had received the SOR.  He stated that Applicant’s remaining debts have not been clearly
resolved, noting that she did not provide a copy of the credit report that accompanied the letter from
the credit reporting agency referenced above.  The Judge concluded that Applicant’s failure to
provide corroborating evidence diminished the mitigating force of her presentation.
Discussion
Applicant cites to favorable evidence, such as her having been a victim of fraud and her
difficult personal circumstances, such as her husband’s illness and deaths in her family.  The Judge
made findings about this evidence, and discussed it in his analysis.  Based on Applicant’s evidence,
the Judge entered favorable findings for several of the allegations.  Applicant has not rebutted the
presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that she believes
supports her effort to obtain a clearance.  However, each case must be decided on its own merits,
and Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal
Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01416 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2017).    
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The Judge’s reliance on the timing of Applicant’s corrective action and the paucity of
corroborating evidence is consistent with the record that was before him.  “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