CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00264.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00264.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00264.a1

Feb 5, 2018· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary issues. First, the applicant had 13 delinquent debts totaling approximately $48,000, which raised concerns under Financial Considerations.

Second, the applicant falsified information on his security clearance application by failing to disclose these financial problems, leading to concerns under Personal Conduct. The applicant admitted to both the delinquent debts and the falsification of information on his application.

Despite admitting to the allegations, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised regarding his financial situation and personal conduct. Consequently, the security clearance denial was upheld as consistent with national security interests.

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 issuedMar 23, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se).
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 5, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Security Concerns Despite Admission of Allegations

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 filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling and that the evidence supported the adverse findings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and did not weigh it in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

William S. Fields
Charles C. Hale
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 F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record and failed to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-00264.a1 DATE: 02/05/2018 DATE: February 5, 2018 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00264

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 March 23, 2017, 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 decision on the written record. On November 17, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 13 delinquent debts totaling about $48,000 and that he falsified his responses on a security clearance application (SCA) by failing to disclose information about his financial problems. In his Responses to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. He did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). The Judge found that Applicant indicated an intent to resolve his delinquent debts, but failed to establish a track record of debt resolution and failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation. Regarding the falsification allegations, the Judge noted that Applicant provided no explanation as to why he did not reveal his delinquent indebtedness on the SCA. In his appeal brief, Applicant provides matters that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration, including certain representations about the status of the debts and a letter from an attorney that post-dates the Judge’s decision. Such matters constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his brief, Applicant resubmitted copies of letters from creditors that he previously provided in his Response to the SOR. To the extent that he is arguing the Judge did not consider record evidence or mis-weighted the evidence, he failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record and failed to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-00844 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2017). To the extent that he is arguing the Judge erred in her findings of fact, any such error was harmless, i.e., an error not likely to affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013). Applicant contends that he was questioned by an investigator about a student loan, and the investigator falsified information in his report about Applicant’s statements regarding that debt. It is unknown what Applicant is referencing. The summary of Applicant’s background interview in the record does not reference a student loan, and none of the SOR allegations appear to pertain to a student loan. Applicant also states that any discrepancies in his SCA were unintentional. In her findings and analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant admitted the falsification allegations without any explanation as to why he did not disclose his delinquent indebtedness, which included a tax lien and child support arrearages. The record contains substantial evidence to support the Judge’s adverse findings on the falsification allegations. See, e.g., ISCR Case 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board