CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-23685.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/24/2008
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 06-23685.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jean E. Smallin, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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 06-23685.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-23685.a1

Mar 24, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant knowingly providing false information on his security clearance application, which included failing to disclose significant unpaid debts and federal tax liens.

The judge found substantial evidence of financial irresponsibility and a lack of candor. Specifically, the applicant's intentional misrepresentation of financial information and the existence of undisclosed tax liens and other debts were key disqualifying conditions.

While some mitigating conditions were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the serious concerns regarding the applicant's personal conduct, financial history, and criminal conduct. Ultimately, the judge concluded that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 20raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's actions were deemed deliberate omissions.
AG ¶ 19(a)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial history did not mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 30, 2007
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldSep 17, 2007
Decision dateMar 24, 2008

Cite For

Denial Based on Knowingly Providing False Information on Security Clearance Application
Significant Unpaid Debts as a Basis for Security Concerns
Lack of Candor in Financial Disclosures Affecting Clearance Eligibility

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 concerns under Guidelines F, E, and J. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the 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 belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline EGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not based on substantial record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the conclusion regarding the applicant's provision of false information was sustainable. The Board also determined that the Judge's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
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; Guideline J DIGEST: The Judge’s findings are supported by substantial record evidence. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant knowingly provided false information on his security clearance application is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-23685.a1 DATE: 03/24/2008 DATE: March 24, 2008 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-23685

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 January 30, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of The Judge’s favorable decision as to subparagraphs 1(a-d) and (h-j) of Guideline F is not at issue in this appeal.

“Applicant testified that in response to the question concerning the tax liens, he knew of the liens but thought the liens were against him personally and not against property since he owned no property . . . His reading of the question is . . . unreasonable . . . by a college graduate. Likewise, Applicant stated he did not know he had debts past due over 180 days or 90 days. Applicant knew [of the tax liens]. He thought he possibly could have other debts but he did not even make an effort to learn of his debts before he completed the security clearance application. His actions in not learning of the exact nature of his debts before responding to the questions on the [SCA] show a deliberate action to omit relevant security matters.” Decision at 9. SOR 1(i, j). the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 17, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 findings are based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had unpaid debts, including two federal income tax liens of $68,588.55 and $18,951.24 respectively. He also had a charged off “bank account debt” for $110. Applicant denied knowledge of this debt and had taken no action “ to inquire or dispute” it. Decision at 4. Another debt, to a car rental agency, was in dispute at the time of the decision. In 1987, Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He continued to incur debt, however, and filed again for bankruptcy protection, under Chapter 13, in 1991. He was discharged in 1998. Regarding the tax liens, Applicant did not file federal income tax returns for many years between 1980 and 2005. Additionally, when asked on his security clearance application (SCA) if he had debts that had been delinquent over 90 days and over 180 days respectively, he answered “no,” despite these tax liens and the bank debt. We have examined the Judge’s decision and conclude that his findings are supported by substantial record evidence. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant knowingly provided false information on his SCA is sustainable. The Judge weighed the evidence supplied by Applicant and considered the application of relevant mitigating conditions, finding in Applicant’s favor on some of the Guideline F security concerns, including those pertaining to his bankruptcy proceedings. Nevertheless, the record supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant failed to meet his burden of persuasion that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security for him to have a Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9 Cir. 1990), th cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). security clearance. Accordingly, the Board holds that the Judge’s decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.

ORDER

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