KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Though we give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited
in his brief, it does not provide a reason to disturb the Judge’s adverse decision. In any event,
Hearing Office decisions are binding neither on other Hearing Office Judges nor on the Board.
Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-03085.a1
DATE: 07/14/2017
DATE: July 14, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-03085
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
October 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 decision
on the written record.  On May 5, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.  
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has held a clearance since 1990.  He has a number of delinquent debts, which he 
disclosed in his security clearance application (SCA).  The debts include back Federal income taxes
for 2009 and 2010.  Although Applicant claims to have set up an installment plan and presented
evidence from which it could be inferred that he had paid off the tax delinquencies, he failed to show
a regular payment history or to explain how his tax debts became delinquent in the first place.  The
SOR lists other debts, including a judgment.  He did not provide corroboration for many of his
claims of payment or that the debts were not owed.
Applicant attributed his financial problems to his wife’s serious illness and to his own loss
of income.  In a 2013 clearance interview, Applicant stated that his employer had not withheld
enough tax payments.  He also promised to pay each of his debts in full.  Applicant is working with
a debt verification firm to challenge certain items on his credit report, but he did not submit evidence
of a significant amount of work done by the firm.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Though acknowledging that Applicant had disclosed his delinquent debts, the Judge noted
that his presentation depended in large measure upon assertions that debts had been charged off or
had fallen off credit reports.  He stated that such evidence is not sufficient to mitigate the concerns
alleged in the SOR.  The Judge concluded that Applicant has not mitigated the Financial
Considerations concerns alleged against him.
Discussion
Applicant’s argument on appeal is not enough to show that the Judge mis-weighed the
evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017).  Moreover, though we
give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited in his brief, it does not
provide a reason to disturb the Judge’s adverse decision.  In any event, 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. 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, Encl. 2 App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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: William S. Fields                
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board