CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00791.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date3/6/2019
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 16-00791) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, Charles C. Hale, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 16-00791.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00791.a1

Mar 6, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to accurately report information on her security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant did not disclose delinquent debts or prior criminal arrests. Her assertions that these omissions were unintentional were not found to be credible. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide documentation demonstrating any efforts to resolve her financial issues.

The board concluded that the applicant's falsification of information on her application, combined with a history of significant financial problems and a lack of remediation, warranted the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct
Guideline FraisedFinancial Considerations
Guideline JraisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 11, 2018
Decision dateMar 6, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Falsification of Security Clearance Application
Importance of Substantial Evidence in Credibility Determinations
Failure to Disclose Financial Issues as a Significant Factor in Clearance Denial

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on allegations of financial considerations, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's omissions and credibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were based on substantial evidence and reasonable inferences, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
Charles C. Hale

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant contends that her SCA omissions were not deliberate. For example, she claims she had no clue what was on her credit report until she was interviewed by an investigator. We note that Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact pertaining to the falsification allegations. It also merits noting that circumstantial evidence may establish an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the alleged falsification occurred. Additionally, we are required to give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. From our review of the record, the Judge’s material findings about the falsification allegations are based on substantial record evidence or constitute reasonable inferences or conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge erred in concluding that she falsified her SCA. Adverse decision affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00791.a1 DATE: 03/06/2019 DATE: March 6, 2019 In Re: -----------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00791

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 20, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On December 11, 2018, after considering the record, 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 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 and Analysis Applicant, who is 46 years old, has been working for a defense contractor since 2013. While experiencing some gaps in employment, she has been working for defense contractors since 1992. She was granted a security clearance in 2007. The SOR alleges that Applicant received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2005 and had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $12,000. On her 2014 security clearance application (SCA), she failed to list her delinquent debts and disclose criminal arrests and citations. She documented no efforts to address her debts. She attributed her bankruptcy to her divorce in 1997, but this is attenuated. She provided no character references or documentation of financial counseling. In a footnote, the Judge noted that Applicant thought the SCA question pertaining to felony charges applied only to those occurring within the last seven years. While she provided no corroboration for her claim to have disclosed the felony charge to an investigator in 2007, the age of the criminal charge in question (occurring nearly 25 years before her SCA submission) renders the allegation of little security significance. Her explanations for omissions of her financial problems and other criminal charges are less credible. Applicant has an extensive history of financial problems and did not provide documentation of efforts to resolve those problems. Similarly, the Government established cases for disqualification under Guidelines J and E. Her SOR response does not contain a thorough explanation for her criminal conduct or SCA omissions.

DISCUSSION

Regarding the falsification allegations, Applicant contends that her SCA omissions were not deliberate. For example, she claims she had no clue what was on her credit report until she was interviewed by an investigator. We note that Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact pertaining to the falsification allegations. It also merits noting that circumstantial evidence may establish an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the alleged falsification occurred. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-05850 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2013). Additionally, we are required to give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01077 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 25, 2018). From our review of the record, the Judge’s material findings about the falsification allegations are based on substantial record evidence or constitute reasonable inferences or conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant failed to establish that the Judge erred in concluding that she falsified her SCA. Applicant has provided detailed explanations pertaining to her financial problems and criminal charges. These arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judges weighing of the evidence and are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02488 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2018). Applicant has also provided us with contact information for her doctor, supervisors, and other character references. However, the Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence (Directive ¶ E3.1.29) and has no authority to interview witnesses, conduct investigations, or make findings of fact. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03072 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2018).

Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board