CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-07247.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-07247.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-07247.a1

Feb 13, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: numerous delinquent debts and false statements made on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant failed to adequately address multiple outstanding debts. Additionally, he provided inaccurate information on his application concerning prior judgments against him. These actions raised disqualifying conditions under both personal conduct and financial considerations guidelines.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant did not successfully mitigate the security concerns presented by his financial irresponsibility and lack of candor. The board found the evidence supported the initial decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“A Judge’s findings must be based on substantial record evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1; Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966).

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 11, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldSep 28, 2007Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 13, 2008Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial Based on Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
False Statements in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Burden of Persuasion Lies with the Applicant to Mitigate Security Concerns.

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 an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not based on substantial evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowChristopher Graham — 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 claimed the Judge did not consider evidence contained in his written submissions.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's findings and affirmed the adverse security clearance decision based on substantial evidence in the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
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: A Judge’s findings must be based on substantial record evidence. There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-07247.a1 DATE: 02/13/2008 DATE: February 13, 2008 In Re: ------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-07247

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 December 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 September 28, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Christopher Graham denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s factual findings were based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts and that he had not corroborated his claim to have begun paying them off earlier than 2007. The Judge also found that Applicant answered “no” to Question 37 of a Security Clearance Application completed in March 2005, which asked if he had had any judgements against him in the previous seven years. The Judge found that this answer was untrue, insofar as a creditor had obtained a judgement against Applicant in May 2003, and Applicant was aware of this at the time he completed the application. A Judge’s findings must be based upon substantial record evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1; Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966). We have examined the Judge’s findings in light of the record and conclude that even if there are errors, they are harmless in that they are minor and would not reasonably have affected the outcome of the case. See ISCR Case No. 01-23362 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). Furthermore, we conclude that the Judge’s decision that Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline F security concerns is sustainable on this record. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15 (“The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant and proven by Department Counsel and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”) On appeal, Applicant claims the Judge did not consider evidence contained in his written submissions. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge has considered all the record evidence. See ISCR Case No. 01-03357 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 13, 2005). Applicant fails to rebut that presumption. In light of the forgoing, we do not need to address the Guideline E concerns.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett 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