CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01999 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01999denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01999

Dec 23, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A young female employed by a Federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from admitted financial struggles, including multiple delinquent accounts, and the deliberate falsification of her security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant omitted these financial delinquencies from her application. Despite acknowledging her financial difficulties, she failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating responsible financial behavior or to mitigate the security concerns raised by her conduct.

The appeal of the denial was unsuccessful. The judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the initial decision. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 30, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 10, 2021
Decision dateDec 23, 2021

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Affirmation of Judge's Findings Based on Substantial Evidence

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 an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations and alleged falsification of her security clearance application. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in analyzing the allegations. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in his analysis of the falsification and debt allegations.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was based on substantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. The Judge's credibility determinations were upheld, and the decision was consistent with national security considerations.

Standard of review applied

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

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

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------------------------ )

ISCR Case No. 20-01999

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 KEYWORD: Guideline E; F DIGEST: Applicant acknowledges that she has been struggling financially over the past years, now realizes her mistakes, and is taking steps to rectify situation as quickly as possible. None of her arguments are sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge’s analysis or conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. She provided points of contact if the Board has any questions. The Board does not have authority to conduct an inquiry or investigation on behalf of a party. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASENO: 20-01999.a1 DATE: 12/23/2021 Date: December 23, 2021

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 October 30, 2020, 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 (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 10, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his analysis of the falsification and debt allegations. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is in her twenties and is employed by a Federal contractor. She has never been married and has no children. She has attended college but has not earned a degree. The SOR alleged that Applicant had a consumer collection account, 12 delinquent medical accounts totaling about $3,700, and five student loans in collection totaling over $15,000. It also alleged that she falsified her 2019 security clearance application (SCA) by failing to disclose any of her financial delinquencies. In responding to the SOR, she admitted each of the allegations. During her background interview, she stated the omission of her financial delinquencies in her SCA was an oversight. In her answer to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), she stated that she did not intend to falsify her SCA. She indicated that she believed that either her father or an insurance company were paying her debts. During her background interview, she noted the IRS began confiscating her income tax refunds in 2017 to apply those funds to her delinquent student loans. She presented no documentary evidence of any payments made on the alleged accounts, of contact with creditors, of financial counseling, or of her current financial situation. All of Applicant’s alleged debts are still ongoing and unresolved. While she experienced periods of unemployment and other struggles, the evidence is insufficient to conclude she acted responsibly under the circumstances. Insufficient evidence was submitted to demonstrate that she is financially responsible. When Applicant submitted her SCA, she was aware her student loans were delinquent because the IRS was confiscating her income tax refunds. She deliberately falsified her SCA to cover up her financial problems. She failed to mitigate the alleged security concerns.

DISCUSSION

In her appeal brief, Applicant contends that the omissions in her SCA were “an unintentional oversight.” Appeal Brief at 1. She argues that she had no idea of the scope of her financial problems. In making these arguments, she has not challenged any of the Judge’s findings

of fact. Instead, she essentially repeats claims she made below that the Judge discounted. The Directive requires us to give deference to a Judge’s credibility determination. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. We find no reason to disturb the unfavorable credibility determination the Judge made in concluding she deliberately falsified her SCA. From our review of the record, the Judge’s material findings and conclusions regarding the SCA falsification are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-02345 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2021). Applicant acknowledges that she has been struggling financially over the past years, now realizes her mistakes, and is taking steps to rectify situation as quickly as possible. None of her arguments are sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge’s analysis or conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. She provided points of contact if the Board has any questions. The Board does not have authority to conduct an inquiry or investigation on behalf of a party. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0140 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2000). Applicant has failed to establish 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 the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with 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 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