A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-06702.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 31, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on deliberate falsifications regarding financial matters under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's claims of unintentional misrepresentation were not credible and that the judge's findings of deliberate falsification were supported by the record.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant deliberately provided false answers on his security clearance questionnaire.
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn the judge's conclusions.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 16 Deliberate Falsificationraised
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Judge’s findings of deliberate falsification are sustainable.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-05-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-03-26 Decision on written record.
- Decision date
- 2007-08-31 Appeal 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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on allegations of deliberate falsification of information on a security clearance questionnaire. The applicant argued that the 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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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