CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-00586.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date2/13/2015
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 14-00586.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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 14-00586.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-00586.a1

Feb 13, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor's security clearance was denied based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant was cleared under Guideline H (Drug Involvement).

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to disclose past drug use on security clearance applications and ongoing significant delinquent debts. The judge specifically cited the applicant's lack of candor regarding drug use and the persistent financial issues as critical factors that raised doubts about his trustworthiness.

Disqualifying conditions were identified under AG ¶ 15 and AG ¶ 18, while mitigating conditions were applied under AG ¶ 20. Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20appliedDrug Involvement

Key Rule Quoted

“Refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of clearance investigators 'will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action[.]'”
— Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 12, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 21, 2014
Decision dateFeb 13, 2015

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Drug Use as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline E
Ongoing Financial Issues Impacting Trustworthiness Under Guideline F
Lack of Candor Affecting Security Clearance Decisions

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied due to concerns under Guidelines H, E, and F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it consistent with the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusion that Applicant deliberately falsified his Security Clearance Application was consistent with the record evidence. The Board affirmed the adverse decision based on the lack of candor and ongoing debt issues that raised security concerns.

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
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 H; Guideline E; Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately falsified his Security Clearance Application is consistent with the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-00586.a1 DATE: 02/13/2015 DATE: February 13, 2015 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-00586

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 May 12, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 21, 2014, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline H are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant works for a Defense contractor. His recent performance appraisal rated him well on judgment and trustworthiness. Applicant married his current wife in 2013, following a 2008 divorce from his previous wife. Applicant first smoked marijuana in 2002. He did so because he had trouble sleeping. He used marijuana about 50 times between 2002 and 2008 or 2009. He asserts that most of his drug usage occurred when he was not working for Defense contractors. Applicant completed security clearance applications (SCAs) in 2008 and again in 2013. On neither SCA did he disclose his drug use. His explanation was that he had stopped using marijuana and did not consider it part of his life. He also stated that he did not understand the ramifications of answering SCA questions falsely. He was interviewed following each SCA. He does not remember being asked about illegal drugs, but he acknowledged that he did not admit to his misconduct. He stated that, at the time of the interviews, he believed his drug usage to have been an old issue. Applicant has had financial problems. Such problems were the basis for Guideline F allegations that resulted in a DOHA hearing in 2010. Following that hearing, the Judge granted Applicant a clearance.1 He did so because he concluded that Applicant’s debts were the result of circumstances outside his control and that Applicant had acted responsibly in regard to these debts. Applicant still carries some of the debt load alleged in the earlier SOR. However, he also has acquired new delinquent debts since then. One is a lien for delinquent Federal income tax owed for tax year 2007. He has made payments toward satisfying this debt, and he has hired a lawyer to negotiate a repayment plan. Some of the other debts alleged in the current SOR were for real estate foreclosures, delinquent credit cards, etc. Applicant is trying to have some of his debts removed from his credit reports because they have been charged off by the creditors and are beyond the statute of limitations. Applicant and his wife have made changes to their lifestyle, such as having obtained cheaper transportation and avoiding unnecessary entertainment costs. He is complying with financial requirements of his decree of divorce from his prior spouse, and he is repaying a loan from his mother. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under each of the Guidelines alleged in the SOR. He cleared Applicant under Guideline H. However, he found against Applicant for the remaining two. The Judge stated that Applicant had not attempted to correct his omissions from the SCAs and, indeed, would not have admitted them yet but for their discovery during the current investigation. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s lack of candor continues to cast doubt upon his fitness for a clearance. The Judge also noted that Applicant had addressed only two of the debts alleged in the current SOR. Moreover, one of these that he had addressed, the tax debt, was paid down through an involuntary bank levy. Though Applicant’s total debt load is much lower than in 2010, the Judge characterized it as significant. He cited to evidence that Applicant is relying on the statute of limitations rather than establishing payment plans for his debts. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to Applicants good work record, stable second marriage, and to evidence that his drug use is behind him. However, he stated that Applicant’s untruthfulness “weighs heavily against a finding that he can be trusted in a classified environment.” Decision at 10. He stated that this interference with the Government’s ability to evaluate his suitability for a clearance, combined with Applicant’s ongoing debt problems, raise doubts that must be resolved in favor of national security.

DISCUSSION

Applicant argues that the Judge erred in his conclusions about mitigation. He states that he was forthcoming about his prior drug use upon receipt of DOHA interrogatories. He also cites to evidence that his overall debt load has decreased substantially since his prior adjudication. He noted the Judge’s finding that he had addressed only two of the SOR debts. He contends that he has established priorities for debt repayment, thereby showing responsibility in the handling of his finances. Applicant argues that his debt history in and of itself looks bad but, viewed in context, demonstrates that he is serious about resolving his problems. He cites to evidence of his good work performance and his stable marriage and argues that he is working hard to correct past mistakes. We have considered Applicant’s appeal brief in light of the record as a whole. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant deliberately falsified his SCA and did not attempt to correct his omissions until DOHA confronted him with evidence of his drug use is consistent with the record that was before him. In essence, Applicant’s arguments regarding his delinquent debts are merely an alternative interpretation of the record, which is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in an erroneous manner. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00683 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 28, 2015). The Judge made detailed findings about Applicant’s circumstances, including his good work record and his family life. Applicant’s brief is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00606 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 28, 2015). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. Refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of clearance investigators “will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action[.]” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 15. Failure to satisfy debts may indicate poor self- control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations. Id. ¶ 18. “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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge in the 2010 case was different from the one in the case before us.