CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-07554.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-07554.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-07554.a1

Oct 12, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 40-year-old applicant with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from multiple unpaid debts totaling over $5,000 and the applicant's failure to disclose these delinquent debts on their security clearance application.

The applicant argued a lack of obligation to pay the debts and claimed some were discharged. However, these arguments were unsupported and subsequently rejected by the judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding the applicant's claims unsubstantiated.

The decision highlighted disqualifying conditions F1 (failure to meet financial obligations) and E2 (deliberate misrepresentation or omission of material facts). Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied due to these financial and personal conduct issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
E2raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 12, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 30, 2007
Decision dateOct 12, 2007

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Delinquent Debts Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Debt Discharge

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 financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in the findings or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on the sustainable findings of fact regarding the Applicant's financial issues and lack of credibility in his claims.

Standard of review applied

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

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

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: In light of the Judge’s sustainable findings, Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-07554.a1 DATE: 10/12/2007 DATE: October 12, 2007 In Re: -------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-07554

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 12, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons 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 April 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. We construe Applicant’s appeal as alleging that the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following sustainable findings of fact: Applicant, 40 years old at the time of the Judge’s decision, holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. In preparing his security clearance application, Applicant answered “no” to questions as to delinquent debts over 180 days and 90 days respectively. Actually, Applicant had several unpaid debts. He owed $4329 to a collection agency for a credit card account. Applicant testified that the card was sent to him unsolicited and that as a consequence he has no obligation to pay the debt. He also stated that he had no contract with the collection agency and, for that reason as well, had no intention to pay. Applicant defaulted on a debt of around $360 for the purchase of a suit. The seller charged off the account and turned it over to a collection agency. For the same reason as that mentioned above, Applicant has declined to pay the collection agency. Applicant owed a debt of $443 for a cell phone. He had a dispute with the service provider over, among other things, whether the contract was for one year or was for a longer period of time. Applicant has declined to the pay the debt, arguing that his contract had expired after one year, contrary to the position taken by his service provider. Applicant had a cell phone with another company and declined to pay $112, which he asserted were roaming fees that he did not owe under the contract. The Judge found that Applicant did not corroborate his claims about this debt. When confronted by an investigator about these debts, Applicant stated that he had no intention to pay them off. At the hearing he claimed, as stated above, lack of privity of contract with the collection agencies. He also claimed that the statute of limitations had run and asserted that, in any event, he had discharged these debts by filing a financing statement under the Uniform Commercial Code. Applicant provided no corroboration for his claim that his debts were discharged by operation of law. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision 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