CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-11933.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-11933.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-11933.a1

Aug 18, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A former military member and federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant failed to disclose significant financial delinquencies and the prior revocation of his security clearance on his application forms.

The judge determined that the applicant's explanations for these omissions were not credible. Furthermore, the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial issues or the personal conduct concerns stemming from the undisclosed information.

Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant did not resolve the disqualifying conditions, specifically AG ¶ 16 and AG ¶ 19, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 24, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 31, 2016
Decision dateAug 18, 2016

Cite For

Credibility of Applicant's Explanations for Financial Omissions
Impact of Financial Delinquencies on Security Clearance
Standards for Evaluating Personal Conduct 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was from a denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider and weigh evidence properly. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider record evidence and properly weigh the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and did not mis-weigh it, affirming the adverse decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
Catherine M. Engstrom

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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor did he show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-11933.a1 DATE: 08/18/2016 DATE: August 18, 2016 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-11933

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 24, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guide F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On May 31, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider record evidence and whether the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant served in the military from 1998 to 2008 and worked for a Federal contractor for three years thereafter. He experienced unemployment from late 2011 until early 2012, after which he worked for a department store for several months. He has worked for his current employer since mid-2012 and has a part-time job as a barber. In 2005, Applicant’s security clearance and his access to sensitive compartmented information were withdrawn, partly due to his having deliberately omitted financial information from his security clearance application (SCA). In 2009, he completed another SCA, in which he failed to disclose his delinquent debts. In 2012, he completed his current SCA. On this application he failed to disclose his financial delinquencies as well as the 2005 revocation of his clearance. The Judge found that Applicant’s explanations for his omissions were not credible. Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent debts. Applicant stated that his financial problems were affected by a divorce. He provided evidence that he had resolved one debt and was making payments as required on another. However, for the balance, the Judge found that Applicant did not provide proof that he had resolved the debts or that they were the responsibility of his ex-wife. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant has a long history of completing SCAs and holding clearances. She did not find credible his explanations for his failures to have disclosed material information, such as his claim that he was distracted during completing his SCAs and that he was not aware of his financial situation. She found that Applicant’s omissions were deliberate. She stated that his repeated failures to be honest cast doubt upon his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment, resolving the Guideline E allegations adversely to him. Regarding the Guideline F allegations, the Judge found that there is “significant evidence his conduct is likely to recur and did not occur under unique circumstances.” Decision at 8. The Judge noted Applicant’s evidence that his now ex-wife had failed to pay debts and had opened accounts without his knowledge. However, she stated that it had been several years since these events occurred, and yet Applicant had done nothing to resolve his problems. She stated that there is no evidence of financial counseling, nor is there evidence to support Applicant’s claim that only some of the debts are his. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s military retirement and to his history of financial problems. She stated that his deliberate omissions from his SCAs are of greater concern. She concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns raised in the SOR.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to various pieces of evidence concerning his financial situation, such as his part-time job and his ex-wife’s contribution to his financial problems. He argues that he has worked hard to develop a plan for resolving his delinquent debts. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05795 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016). Applicant has not specifically raised an issue of harmful error regarding the Guideline E allegations. He states that he was ashamed of his financial situation and cites to his service in the military. To the extent that he is providing context for his omissions, his argument does not undermine the Judge’s finding that they were deliberate, nor does it demonstrate that her mitigation analysis was erroneous. The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “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). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Catherine M. Engstrom Catherine M. Engstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board