ISCR Case No. 06-19963.a1

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge’s adverse conclusions under Guideline E are sustainable based on this record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-19963.a1 DATE: 03/07/2008 DATE: March 7, 2008 In Re: -------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-19963

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 28, 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). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 28, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in concluding that Applicant knowingly provided false information on his security clearance application (SCA) and to an interviewer; and whether the Judge’s failure to mitigate the Guideline F and E security concerns was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had numerous unresolved debts. He found that Applicant stated “no” on his SCA when asked if he had debts that had been delinquent for 90 and 180 days respectively and that these answers were not true. The Judge found that Applicant had been charged with a felony offense arising from his misuse of another person’s credit card. Applicant answered “no” to a question on his SCA inquiring as to whether he had ever been charged or convicted of a felony offense, and during an interview he failed to disclose the full extent of this misuse. The Board has examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record has a whole. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant knowingly provided false information is sustainable. Furthermore, the Judge has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found”under Guideline E and his adverse decision. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline E is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law. In light of this holding, the Board need not address the Guideline F security concerns.

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision 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