CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02763.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02763.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02763.a1

Sep 30, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,600, and the falsification of his security clearance application.

The applicant admitted to having the eight delinquent debts and acknowledged that he had falsified his application by responding negatively to questions about his financial problems. These actions triggered disqualifying conditions under both Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the decision was consistent with national security interests. The board also found no evidence that the applicant had been misled regarding his right to respond to the security clearance form.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal 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 issuedDec 13, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 30, 2020
Decision dateSep 30, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Clarification of Applicant's Rights to Respond to the FORM

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 financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the judge made errors regarding his son's age and his ability to submit letters of recommendation. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he was 13 years old when his oldest son was born.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant states he did not believe he was allowed to submit letters of recommendation.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant did not challenge the Judge's conclusion that he falsified responses in his SCA.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Board concluded that the Judge did not err in the findings made and that the decision was consistent with national security interests.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant states that he did not believe that he was allowed to submit letters of recommendation. The cover letter that accompanied the FORM advised that, before the Judge considered the record, Applicant would have “an opportunity to review [the FORM], make any objections, submit any additional material [he] would like the Administrative Judge to consider.” DOHA Letter, dated March 3, 2020. We conclude that there is nothing in the material that DOHA sent to Applicant that was misleading concerning his right to respond to the FORM. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02763.a1 DATE: 09/30/2020

DATE: September 30, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-02763 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 13, 2019, 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 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 June 30, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $24,600 and that he deliberately falsified his security clearance application (SCA) by responding negatively to inquiries about his financial problems. In responding to the SOR, he admitted all of the SOR allegations but indicated he had paid two of the alleged debts and described his responses to the SCA inquiries as “simply a mistake on [his] part” and he “was not trying to hide anything.” Decision at 3, quoting from Government Exhibit (GE) 2. The Judge found against Applicant on one alleged debt and on the sole falsification allegation. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he was 13 years old when his oldest son was born and also notes this son was adopted. Regarding this issue, the Judge found: It is unclear whether Applicant’s oldest son, who does not bear his surname, is his biological son, adopted, a stepson, or a foster child. If the birthdates listed on the SCA for Applicant and this son are correct, Applicant was only 13 years old at the time of his son’s birth. [Decision at 4.] The birthdates listed in Applicant’s SCA support the Judge’s challenged finding. GE 3 at 7 and 23. Since Applicant noted in his brief that his oldest son is eight years old, the birthdate listed for him in the SCA is apparently not accurate. Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions from outside the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. For example, Applicant contends the debt to which the Judge found against him no longer appears on any of his credit reports. We note, however, that debt is listed on the only two credit reports contained in the record. GE 5 and Applicant’s Response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) at p. 6 of a 30-page credit report prepared March 10, 2020. We also note that Applicant has not challenged in his brief the Judge’s conclusion that he falsified responses in his SCA. Applicant states that he did not believe that he was allowed to submit letters of recommendation. The cover letter that accompanied the FORM advised that, before the Judge considered the record, Applicant would have “an opportunity to review [the FORM], make any objections, submit any additional material [he] would like the Administrative Judge to consider.” DOHA Letter, dated March 3, 2020. We conclude that there is nothing in the material that DOHA sent to Applicant that was misleading concerning his right to respond to the FORM. 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board