CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04092.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04092.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04092.a1

Oct 22, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts and a failure to disclose important financial information. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's financial issues and deliberate omissions did not mitigate security concerns.

The applicant had five delinquent debts totaling almost $15,000. These financial issues occurred after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2003. Furthermore, the applicant failed to disclose several debts and a vehicle repossession on his e-QIP form.

The judge determined that these omissions were deliberate, leading to the denial of the security clearance. The appeal board upheld this decision, citing disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 16(a).

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission of Information

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 issuedDec 8, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 28, 2015
Decision dateOct 22, 2015

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Denial Based on Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Deliberate Omissions in Security Clearance Applications

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 after being denied due to financial considerations and personal conduct issues. The applicant raised several issues on appeal, including a request for reconsideration and contacting his employer. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the original ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip S. Howe — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant requested reconsideration of the Judge's adverse decision and asked the Board to contact his employer.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The Board has no authority to reconsider the Judge's decision or contact the Applicant's employer.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields

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 asks the Board to contact Applicant’s employer which we have no authority to do. The impact of the Judge’s adverse decision is not a relevant part of assessing Applicant’s security eligibility. The Board’s authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04092.a1 DATE: 10/22/2015 DATE: October 22, 2015 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04092

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 December 8, 2014, DoD 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 hearing. On August 28, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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 Board would reconsider Judge’s adverse decision; whether the adverse impact of the decision should be considered; and whether the Board would contact Applicant’s employer. Consistent with the following, we affirm the decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s debts were discharged in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2003. Applicant currently has five delinquent debts, totaling almost $15,000. Applicant is in a dispute with the IRS that is not alleged in the SOR. Applicant did not disclose several of his debts nor a vehicle repossession on his e-QIP. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised two concerns: “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts”1 and “a history of not meeting financial obligations[.]”2 In further concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his delinquent debts, the Judge noted the that the current debts postdate a Chapter 7 bankruptcy from 2003. The Judge further concluded that Applicant’s omissions were deliberate and found against Applicant under Guideline E.

DISCUSSION

Applicant asks the Board to contact Applicant’s employer. The Board has no authority to do that. Compare e.g., ISCR Case No 14-00434 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2015) (“A Judge has no authority to serve as an investigator.”). Applicant asks us to consider the impact on him of the Judge’s adverse decision. Such an impact is not a relevant part of assessing an Applicant’s security eligibility. See. e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-3757 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011). Applicant never challenges the Judge’s decision. Applicant asks the Board to reconsider the Judge’s decision. The Board’s authority is limited to cases in which the appealing party alleges the Judge committed harmful error. See, e.g. ISCR Case No. 14-03078 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 2, 2015). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(a).

2 Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 19(c).