CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03167 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03167denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03167

Jul 5, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from 13 delinquent debts totaling approximately $94,600, which the applicant admitted to in his Statement of Reasons (SOR) response.

Further, the applicant was found to have deliberately falsified security clearance applications by failing to disclose these delinquent debts. These actions raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 16 and 20.

The appeal was denied because the applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from both his significant financial issues and his deliberate misrepresentations on security clearance forms. The judges concluded that the applicant's conduct and financial situation presented an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 23, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 10, 2023after the record closed
Decision dateJul 5, 2023

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Rebuttable Presumption of Judicial Impartiality in Security Clearance Hearings

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 a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued bias and due process violations by the Judge but failed to establish any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge was biased and denied him due process.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and concluded that the decision was sustainable on the record, affirming the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
Allison Marie

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

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 20-03167

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: July 5, 2023

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 November 23, 2021, 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 the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective Jun. 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 10, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleges that Applicant has 13 delinquent debts: a Department of Defense debt of about $26,000, ten Department of Education student loans totaling about $63,000, a Department of Veterans Affairs debt of about $1,400, and child support arrearages of about $4,200. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the Guideline F allegations, some with comments. Under Guideline E, it alleged that Applicant falsified two security clearance applications (SCAs) by failing to disclose that he had delinquent debts. In his SOR response,

Applicant admitted one falsification allegation with comments and denied the other by claiming he did not understand the questions. The Judge concluded that Applicant deliberately falsified his SCAs. The Judge found against Applicant on each of the SOR allegations but excepted specific debts from the falsification allegations. In general, she concluded that Applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from the SOR allegations. On appeal, Applicant contends the Judge “was very rude and insulting. She would ask me a question and would cut me off when I try [sic] to answer. She also called me a thief during the hearing.” Appeal Brief at 1. We construe this assertion as a claim that the Judge was biased against him and that he was denied due process. This assignment of error is unpersuasive. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02391 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 7, 2018). We examined the entire record and Decision, paying particular attention to the transcript of the hearing. We find nothing therein that would cause a reasonable person to question the Judge’s impartiality in this case. The Judge’s comments and questions, while pointed and direct, appear to be efforts at hearing administration and to clarify Applicant’s testimony. Id. (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 at 555-556 (1994)) (“‘[E]xpressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, even anger’ do not establish bias. ‘A judge’s ordinary effort at courtroom administration―even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration―remain immune’.”). Applicant has neither rebutted the presumption that the Judge was unbiased nor established that he was denied any due process afforded him under the Directive. The remainder of Applicant’s appeal brief consists of an explanation of his efforts to resolve the alleged debts. He does not specifically assert the Judge committed any error. To the extent that he is contending the Judge mis-weighed or did not consider record evidence, we find no merit in those assertions. None of his arguments are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence or to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 21-01169 at 5 (App. Bd. May 13, 2022). Applicant also asserts that he has lost a job due to the denial of his security clearance. The adverse impact of an unfavorable security clearance decision, however, is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-02397 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 6, 2020). Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, AG ¶ 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: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board