CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-17189.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-17189.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-17189.a1

Feb 24, 2009· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A 42-year-old former U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer, currently a security manager for a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had numerous delinquent debts exceeding $34,000.

During the review, the applicant falsely answered "no" to questions about his financial history on his security clearance application. He also denied owing the debts but failed to provide corroborating evidence to support his claims.

The judge found that the applicant did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence for his assertions and denied the security clearance. The denial was based on the nature of the false statements made on the application and the unresolved financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedMitigating Conditions for Financial ConsiderationsThe applicant failed to demonstrate that his financial problems arose from causes outside his control.
AG ¶ 17rejectedMitigating Conditions for Personal ConductThe multiple nature of the false statements and their recency were significant factors.

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 20, 2008
Answer filed—Pro se representation
Hearing heldDec 17, 2008
Decision dateFeb 24, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Falsification of Application
Impact of Unresolved Financial Issues on Security Clearance
Insufficient Corroboration of Claims in Security Clearance Cases

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 numerous delinquent debts and false statements made by the applicant on his security clearance application. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the application of mitigating conditions under Guidelines E and F.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRita C. O’Brien — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's application of the Guideline F and E mitigating conditions was erroneous and that the adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's application of the mitigating conditions and concluded that the adverse decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Judge's findings regarding the applicant's financial issues and false statements were deemed rational and consistent with national security interests.

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

Jean E. Smallin
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 E; Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has numerous delinquent debts. He denied owing the money but provided no corroboration. Applicant falsely answered no to two questions on his security clearance application. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-17189.a1 DATE: 02/24/2009 DATE: February 24, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-17189

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 June 20, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the The Judge found in Applicant’s favor under subparagraphs 1(g), (l - m), and (o). These allegations are not at issue in this appeal. The total amount of the debts forming the basis of the Judge’s adverse findings under Guideline F exceeds $34,000.00. The SOR alleged six falsifications contained in SCAs executed in 2004 and in 2008. These concerned the existence of tax liens, unpaid judgements, debts delinquent more than 180 days, and debts delinquent more than 90 days. Applicant denied each of these allegations and the Judge found against him on each one. See Directive ¶¶ E2.17(c)and 20(b). 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 December 17, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s application of the Guideline F and E mitigating conditions was erroneous and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is 42 years old. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1985 to 2006, retiring as a Chief Petty Officer. He is a security manager for a defense contractor. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such things as car loans, credit card accounts, consumer purchases, etc. The Judge noted that, while Applicant denied that he owed them, claiming they had been previously paid off or challenging their legitimacy, he provided no documentation in corroboration. Additionally, Applicant answered “no” to several questions on two different security clearance applications (SCA) concerning his financial history. These answers were not true. The record demonstrates that the Judge considered appropriate mitigating conditions, holding in favor of Applicant as to several of the Guideline F allegations. However, she concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to the remaining allegations under both Guidelines F and E. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. She noted that Applicant earns a “substantial salary,” yet nevertheless allowed his delinquent debt to accrue. Decision at 6. Her conclusion that Applicant had failed to demonstrate that his financial problems arose from causes outside his control is sustainable on this record. She also noted the multiple nature of the false statements and the relative recency of at least two of them. In light of the record as a whole, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and her ultimate adverse security clearance decision, both as regards the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). See also 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)). The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to allow Applicant access to classified information” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 10. See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security’”). In support of his appeal Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin 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