CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00063.a1 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date2/27/2017
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 15-00063.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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 15-00063.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00063.a1

Feb 27, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 60-year-old federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The primary issues involved approximately $27,000 in undisclosed credit card debts and the applicant's failure to report these debts on his security clearance application.

The applicant's claims of ignorance regarding the debts were found to be implausible and unconvincing, leading the judge to conclude that the omission constituted intentional falsification. This finding was based on the applicant's inconsistent explanations and the absence of any evidence that the debts had been paid or resolved.

The decision emphasized the critical importance of national security in clearance determinations. The denial was specifically linked to disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15, reflecting the serious nature of the financial irresponsibility and the deliberate misrepresentation of information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedSep 21, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 27, 2016
Decision dateFeb 27, 2017

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Applications
Significant Unresolved Financial Obligations as a Basis for Clearance Denial
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 concerns under Guidelines B, F, and E. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline FGuideline E

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 no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 B; Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Disagreement with a Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-00063.a1 DATE: 02/27/2017 DATE: February 27, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-00063

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 September 21, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). After Applicant answered the SOR, Department Counsel withdrew the Guideline B allegations. Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On October 27, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant is a 60-year-old employee of a Federal contractor. He has worked for Federal contractors since 2003. He married in 1979 and divorced in 2003. He married his current wife in 2009 and has no children. He received an associate’s degree in 2005. In discussing Applicant’s SOR answer, the Judge stated: Applicant’s answer to the SOR is ambiguous. Regarding the Guideline F allegations, [Applicant] stated, I was not aware of these delinquencies. I plead guilty. . . . Two months ago I was interviewed by [a security officer]. I asked [the security officer] to check my credit report and he said it was fine with a score of 650. Recently I checked my credit report and it is as you say. I do not understand it and am looking into it. I paid them all off. Regarding the Guideline E allegation, he stated, “Guilty, as stated above.” I have interpreted his answer to say that he paid the debts and was not aware that they were listed in his CBRs [credit bureau reports] as delinquent. I have treated his answers to the SOR as denials. Decision at 2. The SOR alleges three credit card debts that were referred for collection in total amount of about $27,000 in June 2012. These debts are reflected on Applicant’s credit reports of April 2013 and June 2015. Two of these accounts reflect that the last payment on them was made in 2014. The third account reflects that Applicant was an authorized user of the credit card. When Applicant submitted his security clearance application (SCA) in March 2013, he answered “no” to questions that asked whether, during the past seven years, he defaulted on any type of loan or had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency, and whether he was currently 120 days delinquent on any debt. He did not disclose in the SCA the debts alleged in the SOR. In his response to the SOR, he did not submit any documentation that the debts have been paid, compromised, forgiven, disputed, or otherwise resolved. He did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge’s Analysis Applicant is not legally responsible for the credit card debt in which he was listed as an authorized user. This alleged debt was not established by the evidence. The Judge found for Applicant on that debt. Applicant’s admissions and his credit report establish the other two credit card debts. These debts are recent, but arguably infrequent. Applicant provided no information about the circumstances in which the debts were incurred and submitted no evidence showing the debts were paid or otherwise resolved. He has not disputed any of the alleged debts. Applicant’s experience and level of education are relevant in determining whether a failure to disclose relevant information on a SCA was deliberate. Applicant made payments on two credit cards after submitting his SCA, which contradict his claim that he thought the debts were paid when he submitted that document. The amount of the debts, the lengthy period during which the debts were unresolved, and his implausible and unconvincing explanation for not disclosing them in his SCA indicate an intentional falsification. His falsification was recent, not minor, and did not happen under unique circumstances.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant argues that the debts were incurred without his knowledge. Specifically, he stated his ex-wife incurred them after their divorce. He also claimed that he provided this information to a security officer (who is not the one that he discussed in his SOR answer). Such information was not previously presented to the Judge and, therefore, constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board can neither receive nor consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also presents arguments concerning the Guideline B allegations. Since the Guideline B allegations were withdrawn, we need not address his arguments regarding those allegations. The remainder of his appeal brief amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06634 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 28, 2016). The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board