CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05699.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05699.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05699.a1

Aug 11, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had 15 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $30,000, which he failed to disclose on his security clearance application.

The judge determined that the applicant's omission of these debts was deliberate. This deliberate falsification, combined with the unresolved financial obligations, led to the denial. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the initial ruling.

The denial was specifically based on Disqualifying Conditions F.3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and E.2 (deliberate misrepresentation or falsification of information). The applicant provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate resolution of the debts or mitigation of the personal conduct concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E.2raisedFalsification of Material Facts

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 issuedMar 10, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldJun 15, 2017
Decision dateAug 11, 2017

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Deliberate 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 an applicant whose security clearance was denied based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the judge made a factual error regarding his military discharge status and that the government mishandled the SCA renewal process. The Board found the alleged errors were either harmless or did not demonstrate that the judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge erred in finding that Applicant was honorably discharged as a specialist instead of a sergeant.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Government did not handle the SCA renewal process properly, and Applicant was rushed to provide information.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
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: The Appeal Board, however, does not have authority to grant an interim, conditional, or probationary clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-05699.a1 DATE: 08/11/2017 DATE: August 11, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-05699

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 March 10, 2016, 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 15, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found against Applicant on 15 delinquent debts totaling about $30,000, noting Applicant did not present any evidence of his efforts to resolve the debts. The Judge also found Applicant falsified his security clearance application (SCA) by failing to disclose his delinquent debts. Noting the Applicant did not consult a credit report before completing his SCA, the Judge concluded that Applicant must have known he had delinquent debts and his failure to list any of them in the SCA was deliberate. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding that he was honorably discharged from the Army as a specialist, when he was discharged as a sergeant. While the Judge may have erred in that finding, we find it was harmless error because it likely had no affect on the Judge’s decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00535 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2017). Applicant also argues that the Government did not handle the SCA renewal process properly, that he was rushed to provided information, and that he did not pull his credit report to verify information. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08778 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 24, 2017). He requests the Board grant him an interim clearance “with stipulations that need to be met.” Appeal Brief at 1. The Appeal Board, however, does not have authority to grant an interim, conditional, or probationary clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 04289 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2015). Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence 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, 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board