CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-06702.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-06702.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-06702.a1

Aug 31, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to deliberate falsifications concerning financial matters. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Specifically, the applicant deliberately provided false answers on his security clearance questionnaire. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's claims of unintentional misrepresentation were not credible. The board found that the judge's findings of deliberate falsification were well-supported by the record.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn the judge's conclusions, leading to the final denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedDeliberate FalsificationThe applicant's falsifications were found to be deliberate.
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant had past due debts that were not disclosed accurately.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Judge’s findings of deliberate falsification are sustainable.”
— Directive E3.1.32.1; ISCR Case No. 04-03849 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 26, 2006).

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 11, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 26, 2007Decision on written record.
Decision dateAug 31, 2007Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Financial Misrepresentation Under Guideline F
Sustainability of Judge's Findings 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 a security clearance based on allegations of deliberate falsification of information regarding past due debts. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge erred in concluding that he provided false answers. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding the conclusions sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — 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 contended that the Judge erred in concluding that he deliberately provided false answers on his security clearance questionnaire.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that the Judge's findings of deliberate falsification were sustainable based on the record as a whole.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: A review of the record as a whole supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s falsifications were deliberate. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-06702.a1 DATE: 08/31/2007 DATE: August 31, 2007 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-06702

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 11, 2006, DOHA 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 March 26, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that he deliberately provided false answers on his security clearance questionnaire. Applicant’s brief also contains new evidence, in the form of a letter from Applicant and one from Applicant’s wife, neither of which had been previously submitted. The Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that he did not deliberately provide false answers concerning his past due debts. We have examined Applicant’s brief, the Judge’s decision, and the record as a whole. We conclude that the Judge’s findings of deliberate falsification are sustainable. See Directive E3.1.32.1; ISCR Case No. 04-03849 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 26, 2006). The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board