WPCd  ,V&m94C: _{azEh#4c#ӡiN!%_u7M(2,052 /o.afH.Go^yyR^@a)G~>0AwC|FV | {sX-f5 ƇR q5bjbɫriy ؃7*_a}t$nH.!Kin_aq^T2Va*9S82"Vr }kTKkWƹ2''e\x_:YP$VPG|R' I%aюnl X825&[E bWyp˒wVL໙ϕ|;!lḽTU2 HDkJP98qxg?1g@n}=X)>af2 `"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.,쉾J;EJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineF;GuidelineE;GuidelineK;GuidelineM;GuidelineJ  DIGEST:ApplicanthasnotrebuttedthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredallofthe  evidenceintherecord.NeitherhasheshownthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamanner t thatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Adversedecisionaffirmed. ` _CASENO_:1405928.a1 8  DATE:05/30/2017  ` _   `     h      p DATE:May30,2017 $  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:      ApplicantforSecurityClearance k AY) xdEgA C )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \ ) H  4  pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1405928 H#  4$ .؉7r. \XXp  $    APPEALBOARDDECISION % APPEARANCES l(  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  D!* JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel "l+  FORAPPLICANT  #- RyanC._Nerney_,Esq.#XX%&T# $.     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On T'"1 August15,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat @(#2 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations),GuidelineE ,)|$3 (PersonalConduct),GuidelineK(HandlingProtectedInformation),GuidelineM(Useof *h%4 InformationTechnologySystems)andGuidelineJ(CriminalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefense +T&5 Directive5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisiononthe +@'6 writtenrecord.OnFebruary21,2017,afterconsideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsand ,,(7 Appeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeGreggA._Cervi_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurity -)8 clearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.  _  Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.TheJudgesfavorablefindingsunderGuidelinesE,K,M, t andJarenotatissueinthisappeal.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm. `   TheJudgesFindingsofFact  8    TheJudgemadethefollowingfindingspertinenttotheissueraisedonappeal:Applicanthas  ` workedforaDefensecontractorsince2012.Heexperiencedperiodsofunemploymentduringthe  L  yearsprecedinghiscurrentjob.Hehaspreviouslyheldasecurityclearance.HisSORalleges14  8  delinquentdebts,totalingover$21,000.Heclaimedduringhisinterviewthathisfinancialproblems $  werecausedbyhisunemployment.Hehasengagedtheservicesofacreditrepaircompanyandpays   $600permonthtowardsatisfactionofhisdebts,thoughhedidnotindicatewhichoftheSORdebts   arebeingaddressedthroughthisservice.Heprovidednoevidenceofhiscurrentfinancialstatus,   budget,financialcounseling,orothermitigatingefforts.     TheJudgesAnalysis  \   TheJudgecommentedthatApplicantsfinancialproblemswerelongstanding.Heconcluded 4 thatApplicanthasnotactedresponsiblyinregardtohisdebtsandthatApplicantsproblems  p continuetocastdoubtonhisjudgmentandreliability.Inthewholepersonanalysis,theJudgestated  \ thatApplicantdidnotprovideevidenceofdebtresolution,despitehishavinghadampletimeand H opportunitytohaveaddressedhissecuritysignificantissues.Moreover,heprovidedno 4 corroborationforhisclaimthathisfinancialconditionissatisfactory.     Discussion     ApplicantclaimsthattheJudgedidnotconsideralloftherecordevidence,citingtosuch  thingsashisinterrogatoryanswers,hishavinghiredthedebtrepaircompany,etc.Applicanthasnot l rebuttedthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidenceintherecord.Neitherhashe X  shownthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrary D! tolaw.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1300502at3(App.Bd.Mar.7,2017). 0"    ApplicantcitestoaHearingOfficecasethathebelievessupportshisefforttoobtaina $X" favorabledecision.Wegivethiscasedueconsiderationaspersuasiveauthority.However,eachcase $D # mustbedecidedonitsownmerits.Directive,Enclosure22(b).Moreover,HearingOffice %0!$ decisionsarebindingneitheronotherHearingOfficeJudgesnorontheBoard.See,e.g.,ISCRCase &"% No.1501416at3(App.Bd.Nov.Feb.15,2017). '#&   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe )$( decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay |*%) begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department h+&* oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt T,'+ concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor @-(, ofthenationalsecurity.  @( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . `    `     h   Signed:MichaelRaanan  d    `     h   MichaelRaanan  P     `     h   AdministrativeJudge  <     `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard (     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody t    `     h   AdministrativeJudge `    `     h   Member,AppealBoard L    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy L    `     h   JamesF.Duffy 8    `     h   AdministrativeJudge $    `     h   Member,AppealBoard