CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-06852.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-06852.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-06852.a1

Oct 1, 2008· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: numerous delinquent debts and the provision of false information on her security clearance application.

The applicant had nearly $8,000 in delinquent debts, including two judgments against her. Crucially, she answered "no" to application questions regarding delinquent debts and unpaid judgments, despite these financial obligations. The judge found her explanations for these false statements to be inconsistent and insufficient to alleviate security concerns.

Consequently, the judge determined that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of candor raised unmitigated security risks, leading to the denial of her security clearance. This adverse decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Substantial evidence is 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.'”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 28, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateOct 1, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns Based on Inconsistent Explanations

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 who was denied a security clearance due to numerous delinquent debts and inconsistent explanations for false answers on her security clearance application. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoseph Testan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that certain findings of fact were not supported by substantial record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's material findings of security concern were supported by substantial record evidence and that the Judge's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael D. Hipple
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: Applicant had numerous delinquent debts. In addition, she provided inconsistent explanations for her false answers on the security clearance application. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-06852.a1 DATE: 10/01/2008 DATE: October 1, 2008 In Re: ------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-06852

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 October 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 decision on the written record. On June 11, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan 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 issue on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of fact were supported by substantial record evidence. We also construe Applicant’s appeal as asserting that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts, which included two judgements rendered against her in favor of creditors. The total amount of the debts is nearly $8,000.00. In July 2006, while filling out her security clearance application (SCA), Applicant provided false information in response to three questions. These questions asked about debts delinquent over 180 days, debts delinquent over 90 days, and unpaid judgements. She answered “no” to each of these questions, which was false as to each. She stated to a government investigator that she did so because of concern over “repercussions from her job supervisor and/or security officer.” Decision at 2. In her response to the SOR, she gave a different explanation for the false answers, that she had hurried through the SCA, because she believed the government was already aware of her debts, and because she thought she had mentioned the debts on the SCA. The Judge stated in a footnote that her SCA contained no reference to her debts. He also found that in 1999, in completing a prior SCA, Applicant had denied having financial problems when, in fact, she had numerous delinquent debts, including unpaid judgments. We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”) In support of her appeal, Applicant submitted new evidence not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider. “No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.” Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Furthermore, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). See also 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)). The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant [A]pplicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 6. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple 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