WPCd  4[՛ol쨮nhSAѸG K99s-"A7/]Pk>%uʍ߇_xo4!yEeOM%'pPpHiKw,pĆ_}ED̮<,ě(.H ˴RL=azF/>EF>caSmk~djlѾVM 9lwp(N(U,U}oցžuBEN%i"9= eL확=LkMTU#)ӆv.b孁][+ӏ$ ϟWS!9S')Z#UN % 0: ^ C wO 4S g v mx Z Z NC C EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E BG Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ϔJ;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF;GuidelineE  DIGEST:ApplicantcitestoaHearingOfficecasethatshebelievessupportsherefforttoobtaina  clearance.However,eachcasemustbedecidedonitsownmerits,andHearingOfficedecisions t arenotbindingonotherHearingOfficeJudgesorontheAppealBoard.Adversedecision ` affirmed. L  _CASENO_:1501826.a1 $ t DATE:06/19/2017  L  ________________________   `     h      p DATE:June19,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:       C ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AY) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501826 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #- RyanC._Nerney_,Esq.#XX%&# $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On T'"1 September25,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisfor @(#2 thatdecision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)andGuideline ,)|$3 E(PersonalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended) *h%4 (Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnMarch30,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOffice +T&5 ofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeJohnGrattanMetz,Jr.,deniedApplicants +@'6 requestforasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,,(7  -)8   Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgefailedtoconsiderallof  therecordevidence,resultinginadecisionthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.The  JudgesfavorablefindingsunderGuidelineEarenotatissueinthisappeal.Consistentwiththe  following,weaffirm. t   TheJudgesFindingsofFact  L    Applicants_SOR_Ԁlists20delinquentdebts.Someofthedebtswereduplicatesofothers, $ t somehadbeenpaidorsettled,andsomewereapparentlytheresultofidentitytheft.However,the  ` Judgeenteredadversefindingsregardingamajorityoftheremainingdebts,totalingabout$14,000.  L  TheJudgenotedthatApplicanthadfirstbeenplacedonnoticeofherfinancialproblemsduringher  8  clearanceinterview.Thoughsheassertedthatshehadbeguntoaddressherdebtsassoonasshe $  becameawareofthem,itappearsthatshedevotedmostofherattentiontohavingdebtsremoved   fromhercreditreportratherthaninvestigatingtheirlegitimacy.Sheacknowledgedthatshehaddone   nothingafterherinterviewbecauseshehadtosaveupthemoneywithwhichtopaythedebtsthat   werehers.     Applicantshusbandbecamegravelyillinlate2010andwasthereforeunabletowork. \ Applicantdivorcedhimfiveyearslater.Twoothercloserelativesdiedin2014.Applicantearns H about$69,000ayearandhasabout$500leftovereachmonth.Ontheotherhand,shehasno 4 savingsandnoretirementfund.  p   Afterthehearing,Applicanthiredanattorneywhopursuedlegalactionagainsttwoofthe H creditbureaus.Asaresult,oneofthebureausstatedbyletterthat itappearedthatApplicantmay 4 havebeenthevictimofidentitytheft,whichcontributedtodisputedinformationinhercreditfiles.   Decisionat3.ThebureauattachedacopyofApplicantscreditreport,butApplicantdidnotsubmit   itinherposthearingdocuments.    Applicantprovidednoevidenceoffinancialcounselingorofabudget.Neitherdidshe  submitcharacterreferencesorworkevaluations. l   TheJudgesAnalysis  D!   TheJudgeclearedApplicantregardingsevenofthedebtsallegedinthe_SOR_,noting #l! evidenceofduplication,fraud,etc.Henoted,however,thatsomedebtswerenotresolveduntilafter $X" Applicanthadreceivedthe_SOR_.HestatedthatApplicantsremainingdebtshavenotbeenclearly $D # resolved,notingthatshedidnotprovideacopyofthecreditreportthataccompaniedtheletterfrom %0!$ thecreditreportingagencyreferencedabove.TheJudgeconcludedthatApplicantsfailureto &"% providecorroboratingevidencediminishedthemitigatingforceofherpresentation. '#&   Discussion  )$(   Applicantcitestofavorableevidence,suchasherhavingbeenavictimoffraudandher h+&* difficultpersonalcircumstances,suchasherhusbandsillnessanddeathsinherfamily.TheJudge T,'+ madefindingsaboutthisevidence,anddiscusseditinhisanalysis.BasedonApplicantsevidence, @-(, theJudgeenteredfavorablefindingsforseveraloftheallegations.Applicanthasnotrebuttedthe  presumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidenceintherecord.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.  1300502at3(App.Bd.Mar.7,2017).ApplicantcitestoaHearingOfficecasethatshebelieves  supportsherefforttoobtainaclearance.However,eachcasemustbedecidedonitsownmerits,and t HearingOfficedecisionsarenotbindingonotherHearingOfficeJudgesorontheAppealBoard. ` See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501416at3(App.Bd.Feb.15,2017). L    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe $ t decision.TheJudgesrelianceonthetimingofApplicantscorrectiveactionandthepaucityof  ` corroboratingevidenceisconsistentwiththerecordthatwasbeforehim. Thegeneralstandardis  L  thataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenational  8  security.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective, $  Enclosure22(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassified   informationwillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.   @( Order      TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . \    `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ󀀀 `    `     h   Michael_Raanan_ L    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 8    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard $    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody     `     h   JamesE.Moody p    `     h   AdministrativeJudge \     `     h   Member,AppealBoard H!    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ $H #    `     h   JamesF.Duffy %4!$    `     h   AdministrativeJudge & "%    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___