CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00110.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00110.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00110.a1

deniedMar 13, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a trustworthiness designation based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from eight delinquent debts, totaling approximately $22,000, which the applicant failed to disclose in her security clearance application.

The applicant asserted that her credit reports contained inaccuracies; however, these claims were found to be unsubstantiated by the judges. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant's omission of these debts constituted falsification.

Given the undisclosed financial obligations and the unsubstantiated claims of credit report inaccuracies, the decision to deny the trustworthiness designation was upheld as consistent with national security interests.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $22,000 that were not disclosed in her security clearance application.
The applicant's claims regarding inaccuracies in her credit reports were found to be unsubstantiated.
The judge concluded that the applicant's failure to disclose debts constituted falsification.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination 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 issuedApr 21, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself (pro se).
Hearing heldDec 19, 2017
Decision dateMar 13, 2018

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Falsification Findings Based on Undisclosed Debts Under Guideline E
Unsubstantiated Claims Regarding Credit Report Inaccuracies

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: We conclude, however, the Judge’s material findings about those documents “are supported by 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00110.a1 DATE: 03/13/2018 DATE: March 13, 2018 In Re: ----------------------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 17-00110

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 trustworthiness designation. On April 21, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 December 19, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $22,000 and she failed to disclose information about her delinquent debts in her 2015 security clearance application (SCA). Applicant paid one small debt and provided documentation showing two court cases against her were dismissed without providing any further information to show the underlying debts were resolved. For the remaining debts, she did not provide documentation showing any progress towards their resolution or establishing a basis to dispute them. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the paid debt and against her on the other SOR allegations. In her appeal brief, Applicant claimed Department Counsel’s representations about documents she submitted are untrue or inaccurate. We conclude, however, the Judge’s material findings about those documents “are supported by 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. Applicant also contends there is inaccurate information in her credit reports, including duplicate entries for debts, but she failed to show that any of those inaccuracies resulted in any harmful error in the Judge’s findings or conclusions. The balance of Applicant’s arguments amount 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 is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 16-01251 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 7, 2017). Regarding the falsification allegation, the Judge noted that Applicant had two associate’s degrees and a bachelor’s degree. The Judge concluded that it was not credible that Applicant misread several questions in her SCA and pointed out that legal action involving some of the debts occurred at, or near, the time she submitted her SCA. In her appeal brief, Applicant raised no allegations of error concerning the Judge’s adverse falsification finding. We note the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance determination is independently sustainable under Guideline E. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Id. at 2. See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board