CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-17074.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-17074.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-17074.a1

Jun 20, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was based on disqualifying conditions F1 and E2.

The judge determined that the applicant's omission of significant financial problems from his security clearance application was deliberate and intentional. While the applicant presented mitigating evidence, it was deemed insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the disqualifying conduct.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the concerns related to his financial issues and the intentional misrepresentation on his application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
E2raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 16, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateJun 20, 2007

Cite For

Insufficient Mitigating Evidence Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Application Under Guideline E
Weighing of Evidence in Security Clearance Decisions

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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in weighing the evidence and in finding that he deliberately falsified his application. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — 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 argued that the Judge erred by concluding that the security concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated.
Credibility determination — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in concluding that his falsification of the security clearance application was deliberate.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge reasonably weighed the evidence and concluded that the presence of some mitigating evidence did not compel a favorable decision. The Judge's findings regarding the applicant's deliberate falsification were also upheld as sustainable based on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO:05-17074.a1 DATE: 06/20/2007 DATE: June 20, 2007 In Re: ---------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-17074

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 February 16, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On November 27, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that the security concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated; whether the Judge erred in concluding Applicant’s falsification of his security clearance application was deliberate. (1) Applicant argues that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated. In support of that argument, Applicant provides new evidence in the form of additional explanations and restates the facts of his case, arguing that the Judge misweighed the evidence, by failing to given adequate consideration to the favorable evidence. Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge. The Board may not consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Its submission does not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02- 12789 at 3 (App. Bd. May 13, 2005). The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole-person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-14740 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan.15, 2003). Thus, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. In this case, the Judge reasonably weighed the mitigating evidence against the seriousness of the disqualifying conduct, and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating conditions. He reasonably explained why there was insufficient mitigating evidence to overcome the government’s other security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by the Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. June 29, 2005). Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable. (2) Applicant also argues that he did not deliberately falsify his security clearance application by failing to disclose adverse information about his financial problems. Again, Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred. The Judge had the opportunity to consider Applicant’s explanation for why he failed to disclose the information in question on his security clearance application. The Judge was not bound, as a matter of law, to accept or reject Applicant’s explanation. The Judge considered Applicant’s explanation in light of the record evidence as a whole, and concluded there was a sufficient basis to find that Applicant’s omission was deliberate and intentional. On this record, the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification is sustainable. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline E is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a 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