CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04693.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04693.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04693.a1

Jul 26, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of delinquent debts, including a federal tax lien, which raised questions about the applicant's reliability.

Further, the applicant intentionally falsified their security clearance application by omitting significant financial information. This act of deception directly contributed to the personal conduct concerns.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of responsible financial behavior or good-faith efforts to resolve their debts. Additionally, the board found a lack of corroboration for claims made by the applicant, leading to the final decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedJan 9, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 23, 2017
Decision dateJul 26, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Denial Based on Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Affirmation of Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Application

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding deliberate omission of information and in concluding that his financial circumstances raised concerns. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — 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 contends that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in finding that he had deliberately omitted information from his security clearance application.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that his circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Judge properly considered the totality of the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.

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
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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 contends that his financial record does not support a conclusion that he is unable or unwilling to pay his debts. However, evidence that Applicant has had delinquent debts for several years, including one for Federal taxes, is sufficient to raise a concern under Guideline F that Applicant may be deficient in the reliability expected of those with access to classified information. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-04693.a1 DATE: 07/26/2017 DATE: July 26, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-04693

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 January 9, 2015, 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 May 23, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 he had deliberately omitted information from his security clearance application (SCA), whether the Judge erred in concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F, 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 an employee of a Defense contractor. His SOR lists several delinquent debts. The ones that the Judge resolved adversely to Applicant were a Federal tax lien and a debt for reimbursement to a Federal agency for overpayment. Regarding the tax lien, which was filed in 2012, Applicant had a repayment plan but missed payments, resulting in the plan being voided. He stated that he notified the IRS that he had to make unexpected car repairs and that his mother had health problems. In his clearance interview, Applicant surmised that the tax lien could have resulted from taxes owed on a new car. The overpayment by the other agency resulted from Applicant’s having worked overseas and having received additional pay. He continued to receive some of that additional pay after returning stateside. His requested for a waiver of reimbursement was denied. He did not corroborate his claim that he had paid $6,000 on this debt. In completing his SCA, Applicant did not disclose the tax lien or the underlying tax delinquency. He did not disclose other debts as well, including one resulting from a real estate foreclosure. Applicant may have been unaware of some of his debts, but at the time he completed his SCA Applicant knew that he had unpaid taxes and that he had not paid his mortgage. Applicant intentionally falsified his SCA. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts, nor had he presented evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve them. He cited to a lack of corroboration for some of Applicant’s claims as well as evidence regarding the extent and the age of Applicant’s financial problems. The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions applied to Applicant’s false statements on the SCA.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes evidence not contained in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding of deliberate falsification. He states that he understands the requirements for holding a clearance and would never intentionally withhold information. Examining the decision in light of the record, however, we conclude that the challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01285 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Dec. 22, 2016). Applicant contends that his financial record does not support a conclusion that he is unable or unwilling to pay his debts. However, evidence that Applicant has had delinquent debts for several years, including one for Federal taxes, is sufficient to raise a concern under Guideline F that Applicant may be deficient in the reliability expected of those with access to classified information. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18. Applicant cites to his favorable evidence, such as his having held a clearance during his service with the other Government agency. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). Despite Applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the Judge’s whole person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that he considered the totality of the evidence in reaching his decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. 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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board