KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J
DIGEST: Applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony supports the Judge’s conclusion that
he had not met his burden of persuasion.  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: 17-02009.a1
DATE: 04/25/2019
DATE: April 25, 2019
In Re:
--------------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 17-02009
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 6, 2017, 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
J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Department Counsel requested a hearing.  On February 7, 2019, after the hearing,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 Guideline J are not
at issue in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
The Judge made the following findings that are pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: from
2007 to 2016, Applicant acquired seven delinquent debts, totaling over $14,000.  These were for
medical expenses and a consumer account.  Applicant attributed the medical debts to his wife’s
illness while he was deployed overseas.  His wife passed away, and he does not know if she ever
submitted claims to the couple’s medical insurer.  Applicant made no follow-up regarding the extent
to which these debts were covered by insurance.  Applicant purchased a home with the proceeds
from his wife’s life insurance policy, applying none of them toward resolving his debts.  He
provided no evidence that he had lodged disputes of these debts, nor did he present evidence of
efforts to contact his creditors or the credit repair firm that he had hired.  He provided no “helpful
documentation” of steps to resolve his SOR debts.  Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for
character, reliability, and trustworthiness.  Decision at 4.
Though noting Applicant’s wife’s death, the Judge concluded that he had not demonstrated
responsible action in regard to the debts listed in the SOR.  He also concluded that Applicant had
not shown that he initiated or is adhering to a good-faith effort to pay his debts.  Although his debts
are not longer listed on his credit report, this does not demonstrate that they have actually been
resolved in such as way a to mitigate the concerns arising from them.  All in all, Applicant has not
demonstrated a meaningful track record of debt resolution.
Discussion
Applicant cites to record evidence that he contends that the Judge did not consider or that
he did not properly weigh.  This includes the circumstances under which his debts arose, his having
hired a firm to address his debts, his contention that the medical debts should be paid by his insurer,
etc.  The Judge made findings about these things.  Applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony
supports the Judge’s conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion.  See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 15-07062 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 21, 2017).  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
2
evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
17-04198 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019).
We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited in support of
his effort to obtain a favorable decision.  However, Hearing Office cases are not binding on other
Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board.  Each case must be decided on its own merits.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03363 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2018). 
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 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: James F. Duffy                  
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3