CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-00184.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-00184.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-00184.a1

Jul 24, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations). The appeal board affirmed this denial, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge's initial findings were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Despite the applicant's military service and efforts to resolve financial issues, his submitted mitigating evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome the seriousness of the disqualifying conduct. The board emphasized that the applicant did not meet the burden of establishing adequate mitigation for the security concerns raised.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, as the applicant's attempts to address the personal conduct and financial considerations did not sufficiently alleviate the identified security risks.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline EraisedPersonal Conduct
Guideline FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“[T]here is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 22, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 31, 2007
Decision dateJul 24, 2007

Cite For

Affirmation of the Presumption Against Granting Security Clearances
Burden on Applicant to Establish Mitigation
Insufficient Weight Given to Mitigating Evidence Does Not Compel a Favorable Decision

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 security concerns under Guidelines E and F. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in not mitigating these concerns. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns raised under Guidelines F and E had not been mitigated.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the Applicant did not demonstrate error in the Judge's weighing of evidence.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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 E DIGEST: Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions, he has not demonstrated that they are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 06-00184.a1 DATE: 07/24/2007 DATE: July 24, 2007 In Re: -------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-00184

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 June 22, 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 hearing. On January 31, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that the security concerns raised under Guidelines F and E had not been mitigated. Applicant argues that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns raised under Guidelines F and E had not been mitigated, in that he gave insufficient weight to Applicant’s explanations at the hearing and the fact that Applicant had served honorably in the military for over 24 years. In support of his argument, Applicant offers new evidence which documents his continuing efforts to resolve his financial problems. Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred. The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, we may not consider Applicant’s additional documentary evidence, and its submission does not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge. There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence unless he specifically states otherwise. See, e.g., DOHA Case No. 96-0228 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 1997). The Judge is not required to cite or discuss every piece of record evidence. See, e.g., DISCR Case No. 90-1596 at 5 (App. Bd. Sept. 18, 1992). The federal government need not wait until an applicant actually mishandles or fails to properly handle classified information before it can deny or revoke access to such information. See Adams v. Laird, 420 F. 2d 230, 238-239 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1039 (1970). An applicant with good or exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative security implications. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0123 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 11, 2000). The Directive's Guidelines set forth a variety of examples of off-duty conduct and circumstances which are of security concern to the government and mandate a whole-person analysis to determine an applicant's security clearance eligibility. A whole-person analysis is not confined to the workplace. See ISCR Case No. 03-11231 at 3 (June 4, 2004). “[T]here is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance.” Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9 Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). Once the government th presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. 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. Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. 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 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. The Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in concluding that the Guideline F and E allegations had not been mitigated. Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions, he has not established that those conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. In this case, the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct. He reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome all the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable record evidence cited by 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 security clearance decision under Guidelines F and E is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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