CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-13610.a2 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date3/9/2009
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 06-13610.h2) →See the appeal decision (Case 06-13610.a1) →See the hearing decision (Case 06-13610.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 06-13610.a2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-13610.a2

Mar 9, 2009· 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 Administrative Judge's denial was affirmed by the appeal board, which found the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

The denial stemmed from concerns related to the applicant's personal conduct and financial history, specifically citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15. While the applicant presented mitigating evidence, referencing AG ¶ 21 and AG ¶ 17, the board concluded that this evidence did not outweigh the unfavorable information regarding his debts and conduct.

Ultimately, the board determined that the applicant's disagreement with the Judge's assessment of the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate an error in the original decision. The presence of some mitigating evidence did not compel a favorable outcome, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe presence of some mitigating evidence does not compel a favorable security clearance decision.
AG ¶ 17rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's favorable evidence did not outweigh the unfavorable evidence.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 29, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 28, 2008conducted telephonically
Decision dateMar 9, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Unfavorable Decisions Based on the Weighing of Evidence
Insufficient Mitigating Evidence Does Not Compel a Favorable Outcome
Disagreement with the Judge's Conclusions Does Not Demonstrate Error in the 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 an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and did not adequately consider mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark W. Harvey — 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 contends that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence did not demonstrate harmful error. The Board affirmed the unfavorable decision of the Judge.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: 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 Board does not review a case de novo. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-13610.a2 DATE: 03/09/2009 DATE: March 9, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-13610

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 29, 2007, 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). Although Applicant requested a decision on the written record, he subsequently moved to convert to a hearing. On April 28, 2008, after a proceeding conducted telephonically, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed, and in a decision dated October 31, 2008, the Appeal Board remanded the case for a new proceeding that complies with the Directive. After a subsequent hearing, the Administrative Judge denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable decision. Applicant essentially contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not give adequate weight to mitigating evidence and other favorable evidence about the origin of his delinquent debts, the basis for his false answer to question 21 of his security clearance application, and his military service. In support of his request, Applicant summarizes the favorable evidence he presented below. Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge’s ultimate conclusions are in error. 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007).

The Board does not review a case de novo. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge 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