CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-05036.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-05036.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-05036.a1

May 23, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from approximately $52,000 in delinquent debts owed to at least nine creditors, and the deliberate falsification of his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant answered "no" to questions regarding delinquent debts and judgments on his application, despite owing a significant amount. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the financial issues and intentionally misrepresented his financial status.

These actions triggered disqualifying conditions F1 (history of not meeting financial obligations) and E2 (deliberate misrepresentation or omission of relevant facts). Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
E2raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 18, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 30, 2008
Decision dateMay 23, 2008

Cite For

Delinquent Debts as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Information on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance When Concerns Are Raised

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 a security clearance based on delinquent debts and falsification of the application. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

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

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the adverse decision based on substantial evidence regarding the applicant's delinquent debts and falsification of the security clearance application.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields

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: The Judge found that Applicant had delinquent debts to at least nine different creditors totaling approximately $52,000 and that Applicant had deliberately falsified a security clearance application. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-05036.a1 DATE: 05/23/2008 DATE: May 23, 2008 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-05036

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 18, 2007, DOHA 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 hearing. On January 30, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene Lokey-Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had delinquent and outstanding debts to at least nine different creditors totaling approximately $52,000. Applicant had been unsuccessful in setting up a debt repayment plan or obtaining a debt consolidation loan. At the time of hearing, he had saved $3,600 for the purpose of debt payment and had paid one of the outstanding debts. Decision at 2-3. The Judge also found that Applicant had deliberately falsified his security clearance application (SCA) when in response to the questions as to whether he had debts that had been delinquent more than 90 and 180 days respectively, or any judgements against him, he answered “no.” Decision at 3-4. Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9 Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the government presents th evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. “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). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962). Accordingly, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guidelines F and E is sustainable.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board