CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01659 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-01659

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/29/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 20-01659) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined 17 allegations related to past criminal offenses, including 13 arrests between 1994 and 2009, and accusations of falsifying his security clearance application by not disclosing delinquent debts and DUI charges. Additionally, the SOR cited seven debts in collections under Guideline F.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the criminal offenses but denied any intent to falsify his application, claiming he misunderstood the questions regarding his DUI charges and debts. The administrative judge found that while the criminal offenses were dated and mitigated by time, the applicant's failure to disclose the DUI offenses and delinquent debts was not mitigated. The judge emphasized that the applicant's repeated false statements during the security clearance process undermined any mitigating factors. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on the falsification and financial allegations, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated the necessary reliability and trustworthiness for a security clearance.
On appeal, the applicant raised jurisdictional issues and argued that he should have been allowed to correct his application. However, the appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the record supported the findings and that the judge had adequately considered all evidence presented. The board noted that the applicant's failure to disclose critical information and the judge's credibility determinations were well-supported, leading to the conclusion that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national security interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01659

Jan 29, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

This case involves a late-40s divorced applicant with three children whose security clearance was denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: falsifications on his security clearance application and during his interview, and significant financial liabilities.

Specifically, the applicant had approximately $127,000 in debts that were in collections. These financial concerns, combined with the deliberate misrepresentations, raised serious questions about his personal conduct and reliability.

The appeal was ultimately denied, with the judges highlighting the applicant's lack of credibility and his failure to accept responsibility for both the falsified information and his outstanding debts. The decision emphasized that these factors were disqualifying conditions under the relevant guidelines.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.2appliedFalsification of Material Facts
F3appliedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedFeb 3, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing held2023-08-00initial session held, continued due to jurisdictional question
Decision dateJan 29, 2024appeal affirmed

Cite For

Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Significant Financial Debts Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F
Credibility Determinations by Judges in Security Clearance Cases.

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 security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The applicant raised issues regarding jurisdiction and alleged misunderstandings of the security clearance application questions. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged no specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error. The Judge's credibility determinations and findings were adequately supported by the record.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
James B. Norman
Gregg A. Cervi

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.