CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-06205.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-06205.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-06205.a1

Aug 7, 2008· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: significant delinquent debts and deliberate falsifications on her security clearance application.

The applicant had 15 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $19,000, with payments made on only one of these obligations. Compounding this financial concern, the applicant deliberately answered "no" to questions on her security clearance application regarding delinquent debts, despite the existence of these outstanding financial obligations.

The judge determined that the applicant's mitigating evidence was insufficient to resolve the government's security concerns related to both her personal conduct and financial considerations. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 28, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 22, 2008Applicant requested decision on written record.
Decision dateAug 7, 2008

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Application Under Guideline E
Burden of Proof Shifts to Applicant After Government Raises Security Concerns

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 an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to delinquent debts and falsifications on her application. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was not sustainable, but the Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's reasoning.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowClaude R. Heiny — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

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 clearance decision under Guidelines F and E is not sustainable.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented, and the Judge reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns.

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 D. Hipple
William S. Fields
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: Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from $19,000 worth of delinquent debt and from falsifications on her security clearance application. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-06205.a1 DATE: 08/07/2008 DATE: August 7, 2008 In Re: ------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-06205

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 October 28, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On April 22, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision under Guidelines F and E is sustainable. The Judge found that Applicant had 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,000. At the time the case was submitted for decision, she was paying on only one of the debts. Decision at 1-2. Additionally, the Judge found that Applicant had deliberately falsified her security clearance application when in response to the question as to whether she had debts that had been delinquent more than 90 days and more than 180 days respectively, she answered “no.” The Judge noted that in her response to the SOR, Applicant had stated that she was so consumed with shame concerning her financial situation that she failed to disclose her debts. Id. at 2-3. On appeal, Applicant requests that the Judge’s adverse decision under Guideline F be reversed because her financial problems had resulted from a period of underemployment after she had left the military. She asks that the adverse decision under Guideline E be reversed based on her favorable character references and military service. Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In this case, the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating conditions and factors. He found in favor of Applicant as to one of the SOR allegations. However, the Judge reasonably explained why the evidence which Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). 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). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guidelines F and E is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board