CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-09989.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date11/18/2013
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 12-09989.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Jeffrey D. Billett, Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 12-09989.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-09989.a1

Nov 18, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen from Iran was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant made deliberate and inconsistent false statements regarding his possession of an Iranian passport, which the judge found unconvincing. This raised significant doubts about his trustworthiness and reliability.

Additionally, the applicant demonstrated a history of financial irresponsibility, including a substantial mortgage delinquency and a prior bankruptcy. These financial issues further contributed to the judge's concerns about his judgment and reliability, aligning with disqualifying conditions related to financial considerations.

While the applicant received favorable findings under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), mitigating concerns related to his Iranian background, the severity of the false statements and financial issues ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance. The judge concluded that the applicant's explanations for these issues were inconsistent and did not sufficiently resolve the security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ E2.A5.1appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's false statements regarding his Iranian passport were found to be deliberate.
AG ¶ F2.A1appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's recent financial issues, including mortgage delinquency, raised doubts about his trustworthiness.

Mitigating

AG ¶ B2.A1appliedForeign InfluenceThe judge resolved Guideline B in the applicant's favor.

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 issuedFeb 14, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 5, 2013
Decision dateNov 18, 2013

Cite For

False Statements Regarding Foreign Passports Under Guideline E
Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F
Favorable Findings Under Guideline B Not Contested on Appeal

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 concerns under Guideline B and Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse security clearance 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 her conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge's analysis of the evidence was consistent with the record and adhered to the required procedures.

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
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 B; Guideline F DIGEST: Judge considered Applicant’s false statements in light of the record as a whole. The Judge’s weighing of the evidence was consistent with the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-09989.a1 DATE: 11/18/2013 DATE: November 18, 2013 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-09989

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 February 14, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 5, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline B are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant came to the U.S. from Iran in the late 1970s, becoming a naturalized citizen a few years later. His wife is a naturalized citizen. He has held a security clearance for about ten years. Applicant traveled to Iran in the early 2000s. He stated that, at the time, he had a U.S. passport, plus authorization to enter Iran for three months and did not need to use an Iranian passport. His original Iranian passport expired in the late 1980s. In his answer to the SOR, he stated that his U.S. passport was the only one he had. In 2003, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA). In it he denied that he held a foreign passport and acknowledged his visit to Iran. Several years later, he completed another SCA, again denying that he held a passport from a foreign country. In completing the SCA that is the basis of the current adjudication, Applicant acknowledged having held an Iranian passport that had expired in the late 1980s. He stated nothing about an Iranian passport that he may have used in conjunction with his trip to Iran. At the hearing, however, Applicant testified that he had in fact possessed a valid Iranian passport during the time of his trip to Iran but that he had not used it. “Applicant offered another explanation at the hearing, stating that he had the [original] passport with another passport attached to it.” Decision at 3. He stated that the papers that allowed him to travel to Iran must have been accompanied by an Iranian passport. The Judge took official notice that Iran does not recognize dual nationality. If a person was born in Iran, regardless of subsequent naturalization by another country, then one must present an Iranian passport to enter the country. Regarding Guideline F, the Judge found that Applicant had purchased several pieces of real estate during the 1990sand 2000s. He was not able to maintain the properties and, due to the poor economy, could not find renters. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in early 2010 and was later discharged. Applicant was able to keep his principal place of residence, which was subject to two mortgages. Applicant became delinquent in making payments on the second mortgage, which was in the amount of $92,000. He tried to settle this debt, but he was not successful. He has contracted with a law firm to repair his credit. Applicant earns $128,000 a year. He has $110,000 in a 401(k) account and other investments worth about $200,000. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under all three Guidelines alleged in the SOR. She resolved Guideline B in Applicant’s favor. However, she reached the opposite conclusion regarding the other two Guidelines. She concluded that Applicant’s statements regarding his Iranian passport were deliberately false, given his multiple inconsistent statements. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s debt problems were recent, as were his efforts to resolve his remaining mortgage delinquency, and that Applicant’s conduct raised doubts about his worthiness for a clearance which were not satisfactorily resolved.

DISCUSSION

In concluding that Applicant had falsified his SCAs, the Judge complied with the requirements of the Directive in that she evaluated Applicant’s conduct in light of the record as a whole. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07551 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2011). Moreover, despite Applicant’s argument on appeal, the Judge’s weighing of the evidence under Guideline F was consistent with the record that was before her. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-08063 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 19, 2013). 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board