CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-24674.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-24674.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-24674.a1

Apr 10, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant, representing himself, faced concerns regarding significant debt and issues with personal conduct related to his application.

Specifically, the applicant carried over $17,000 in debt and did not provide adequate evidence demonstrating its resolution. While the applicant contended he did not deliberately falsify his application, the judge found this claim unconvincing, contributing to the denial.

Ultimately, the judges affirmed the decision, citing the applicant's failure to mitigate the financial concerns and the insufficient evidence provided to resolve the issues raised under both personal conduct and financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ E.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire

Key Rule Quoted

“There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge has considered all the evidence in the record before her unless she specifically states otherwise.”
— ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2001)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 11, 2007
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldOct 30, 2007
Decision dateApr 10, 2008Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial Based on Significant Financial Debt Under Guideline F
Consideration of Post-hearing Submissions by the Judge
Rebuttable Presumption of Evidence Consideration by the Judge

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 from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider additional materials submitted post-hearing. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no error in the Judge's decision-making process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge did not receive or consider the additional materials provided by the Applicant.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's consideration of the evidence, affirming that the Judge received and considered the Applicant's post-hearing submissions, even if she did not accord them the weight the Applicant desired.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
James E. Moody

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: There is a rebuttable presumption that a has considered all the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-24674.a1 DATE: 04/10/2008 DATE: April 10, 2008 In Re: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-24674

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 11, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons 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 October 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge did not receive or did not consider the additional materials he provided when the record was held open for that purpose. Finding no error, we affirm. At the time of the hearing, record evidence indicated that Applicant was indebted to seven creditors for a total amount exceeding $17,000. Applicant testified that he had paid off one small debt and had mailed a check to pay another small debt three days before the hearing, but provided no corroborating evidence. Applicant had done little else to settle his debts. Applicant testified that he was unaware that he had debts that were delinquent by 180 or 90 days when he filled out his security clearance application and therefore did not deliberately falsify the application. The Judge held the record open for three weeks for Applicant to submit further information about his attempts to satisfy his debts, and Applicant submitted documents twice during that period. Applicant’s post-hearing submissions are contained in the record. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge has considered all the evidence in the record before her unless she specifically states otherwise. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2001). Moreover, the Judge stated in her decision that Applicant submitted materials after the hearing, and she set out the terms of an agreement that Applicant entered into which was part of the post-trial materials. See Decision at 2 and 3. It is clear that the Judge received the materials Applicant submitted and considered them in reaching her decision. The fact that she did not accord them the weight Applicant would have accorded them is not indicative of error on the part of the Judge. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-01659 at 2 (Feb. 22, 2008). Given the record that was before her, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.

Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board