CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-05607.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-05607.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-05607.a1

Sep 5, 2014· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to significant financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had over $54,000 in delinquent debts, including judgments and charged-off accounts, which raised disqualifying conditions F.2 and F.3.

The judge found that the applicant made deliberate omissions in his security clearance application, which significantly undermined his credibility. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating financial responsibility or character references to mitigate the concerns.

Ultimately, the denial emphasized the critical importance of national security in clearance determinations, concluding that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of candor presented an unacceptable risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDeliberate Omission of Information From a Security Clearance Application

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 17, 2013
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJun 27, 2014Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateSep 5, 2014

Cite For

Deliberate Omissions in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline F
Significant Financial Issues as a Basis for Denial of Security Clearance
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 financial considerations and personal conduct issues. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding his omissions from the application were deliberate and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in finding that his omissions from the security clearance application were deliberate.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not err in concluding that the applicant's omissions were deliberate. The decision was consistent with the interests of national security.

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 Ra’anan — Chair
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 DIGEST: In evaluating an applicant’s intent a Judge should consider the omissions or false statements in light of the record as a whole. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-05607.a1 DATE: 09/05/2014 DATE: September 5, 2014 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-05607

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 17, 2013, DoD 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 decision on the written record. On June 27, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in finding that his omissions from the security clearance application (SCA) were deliberate and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant is seeking a security clearance in connection with his employment by a Defense contractor. His SOR alleges delinquent debts totaling over $54,000. The debts are for judgments levied against him, medical expenses, telephone services, credit cards, etc. Several of these debts were turned over to collection agencies and/or charged off by the creditor. Applicant presented no evidence of financial counseling. He experienced unemployment off and on (for a total of about 8 months) between 2008 and 2011. He has been employed since early 2012, however, and has a monthly remainder of about $2,000. The SCA contained several questions about finances. Applicant answered “no” to three of them: whether there were any judgements against him, whether any of his debts had been turned over to collection agencies, and whether any of his debts had been charged off or cancelled. These “no” answers were false, in light of the evidence summarized in the preceding paragraph. The Judge found that these omissions were deliberate, stating that it is not reasonable to believe that Applicant was unaware of the extent of his financial problems. Applicant submitted no evidence about the quality of his work performance, nor did he present any character references. The Judge stated that he was not able to examine Applicant’s demeanor or credibility in person, insofar as he had elected a decision without a hearing. The Judge’s Analysis In concluding that Applicant had failed to mitigate the concerns in his case, the Judge cited to evidence that Applicant’s financial problems went back as far as 2002, but, with a couple of exceptions, his SOR debts remained unresolved at the close of the record. He stated that, despite evidence of unemployment, a circumstance beyond his control, Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his financial problems. The Judge stated that Applicant failed to corroborate his claims of debt repayment. He also stated that Applicant’s claim that he merely overlooked the questions in the SCA “strains credulity.” Decision at 9.

DISCUSSION

Applicant claims that the Judge erred in finding that his omissions from the SCA were deliberate. We examine a Judge’s findings to see if they are supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See also ISCR Case No. 12-04540 at 6 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2014). In evaluating an applicant’s men rea, a Judge should consider the omissions or false statements in light of the entire record. Id. In this case, the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s claims of simple mistake were not credible is supportable, given the extent of his financial problems. We give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. We also note Item 8, an affidavit prepared by Applicant in connection with a clearance adjudication in 2002. In this document, he asserts that he “did not intentionally omit debts from the security form . . . I didn’t mention anything other than the car repossession, because I had just simply forgotten about all the other things. There is no reason that I would deliberately omit or hide information, as I’m well aware that the government would have access to my credit history.” That he had previously been questioned about omissions from an SCA undercuts his claims of mistake or oversight, as does the extent of his financial problems. We find no error in the challenged finding. Applicant cites to evidence of his military career, his having held a clearance for many years, and steps he has taken to address his problems. Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-09160 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2013). The Judge’s conclusions about a paucity of mitigating evidence were consistent with the record before him and support his adverse decision. Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “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). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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