A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-24674.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 10, 2008 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guidelines E and F, facing issues related to financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant had significant debt exceeding $17,000 and failed to provide sufficient evidence of debt resolution, leading to the denial of his clearance. The judges affirmed the decision, noting the applicant's lack of deliberate falsification but insufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had significant debt exceeding $17,000.
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of debt resolution.
- The judge found the applicant's claims of not deliberately falsifying his application unconvincing.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ F.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
- AG ¶ E.2 Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaireraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-04-11
- Answer filed
- Applicant represented himself.
- Hearing held
- 2007-10-30
- Decision date
- 2008-04-10 Appeal 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
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 Applicant argued that the Judge did not consider additional materials he submitted. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in her consideration of the evidence.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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