KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. The Judge
made findings about Applicant’s debt resolution and discussed it in his analysis. Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-04871.a1
DATE: 06/07/2017
DATE: June 7, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-04871
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
December 30, 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 March 1, 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all of the
evidence and 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
In 2003, Applicant bought a home with a VA loan in the amount of about $183,000.  He later
bought a second home for about $622,000.  At about the same time, Applicant obtained a second
mortgage on his first house.  This loan was for about $248,000.  Applicant’s wife and mother were
to sell the first home, but they never did so, and was not never rented out.  Although Applicant could
keep up with mortgage payments through most of 2012, the lender short-sold the first house.  This
action resolved the first mortgage but not the second.  
Applicant suffered some economic setbacks in the years leading up to his mortgage
problems.  A prime contractor did not renew the contract for Applicant’s business and lured away
his employees.  He was unemployed for several months, eventually taking a job that paid less than
he was previously making.  He was again unemployed in November 2012, obtaining another job
early the next year, though again for a lesser salary than he had made when running his company. 
Applicant’s wife also experienced some unemployment.
Applicant had some non-alleged debts that, though previously delinquent, he had resolved. 
Applicant did not present evidence of financial counseling or of a budget. (emphasis added)
Decision at 3.   Neither did he submit character references or evidence of his job performance.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge noted evidence that Applicant and his wife had suffered unemployment, which
was beyond their control.  However, he concluded that Applicant’s having acquired so much
mortgage debt in purchasing a second home without a plan to deal with the first one demonstrated
a lack of responsibility.  The Judge cited to evidence that Applicant did not begin to resolve his
financial problems until after he received the SOR and ultimately concluded that Applicant had not
shown that his problems were under control.
Discussion
Applicant argues that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence in the record, for
example that he had addressed some of his debts.  He also argues that he submitted evidence of a
budget, yet the Judge found that he had not done so.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all of
the evidence in the record.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017).  The
Judge made findings about Applicant’s debt resolution and discussed it in his analysis.  
Regarding the budget, however, Applicant has rebutted the presumption.  Applicant included
a budget in a package of documents admitted as Applicant Exhibit B.  The Judge’s finding suggests
that he did not consider this document in evaluating Applicant’s case, which was an error.  However,
given (1) that the budget shows a monthly deficit of nearly $300; (2) that the Judge did not rely on
the absence of a budget in his analysis of the case; and (3) that the Judge based his decision in large
measure on the timing of Applicant’s effort at debt resolution and on aspects of Applicant’s financial
problems that impugned his judgment, we find no reason to believe that, had the Judge actually
addressed the budget, he would have arrived at a different conclusion.  Therefore, this error is
harmless.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00535 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017).
Applicant cites to a Hearing Office case that he asserts is similar to his own and supports his
effort to get a clearance.  Hearing Office cases 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. Nov. Feb. 15, 2017).  In
any event, the case that Applicant has cited has significant differences from the circumstances
underlying his.  This case does not provide a reason to reverse the Judge’s decision.
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