A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-22871.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 24, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of financial irresponsibility and a felony conviction. The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to pay child support until garnishment and a prior felony conviction as significant factors.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to pay child support until his wages were garnished in 2002.
- The applicant had a prior felony conviction for writing a bad check, which he pled down to a misdemeanor.
- The judge found the applicant's testimony regarding his knowledge of the child support order to be not credible.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- J1 Criminal conductraised
- F1 Financial considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“Any error regarding by the Judge regarding Applicant’s child support payments is harmless given the totality of the record evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-01-30
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-07-30
- Decision date
- 2008-01-24
Cite for
- Denial Based on Failure to Pay Child Support Under Guideline F
- Impact of Prior Felony Convictions Under Guideline J
- Credibility Assessments in Security Clearance Cases
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
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and criminal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not based on substantial evidence and that the application of whole person factors was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the record.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline J DIGEST: Any error regarding by the Judge regarding Applicant’s child support payments is harmless given the totality of the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-22871.a1 DATE: 01/24/2008 DATE: January 24, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-22871
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 January 30, 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 J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On July 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 certain of the Judge’s factual findings are based upon substantial evidence; and whether the Judge’s application of the relevant whole person factors is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant was charged in 1994 with a felony count of writing a bad check. He entered a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor, receiving a sentence of 60 days confinement, with 55 days suspended. Applicant was ordered to pay restitution, but he did not do so until 2002. In 1995 Applicant was divorced from his wife. The following year she obtained a court order for child support from Applicant. Applicant did not begin paying until his wages were garnished in 2002. He stated at the hearing that he did not know about the child support order until the garnishment action. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s testimony on this point was not credible. The Board concludes that the Judge’s findings are based upon substantial record evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1; Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620-21 (1966). Any error in stating that Applicant’s child support payments have been made through garnishment since 2002 is harmless, given the totality of the record evidence. Furthermore, we have examined the Judge’s whole person analysis and conclude that it is sustainable on the record. To the extent that Applicant’s brief contains new evidence, we cannot consider it. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. See also ISCR Case No. 06-17209 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 14, 2007).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed; Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Wiliam S. Fields
William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board