CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-14843.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-14843.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-14843.h1

deniedApr 9, 2004· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old mail clerk for a defense contractor overseas was denied a security clearance due to significant financial issues and a history of criminal conduct, falling under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

The applicant had 30 outstanding debts totaling over $31,000, with no payments made. These debts included various collection agency accounts, bank loans, medical bills, credit card balances, and a judgment, along with an $80 child support arrearage. Additionally, the applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for 2000, 2001, and 2002 until June 2003, despite having sufficient income.

His criminal history included arrests in March 1998 and 1999 for misdemeanor larceny, though these charges were dismissed. He was also arrested in January 1999 for shoplifting from a military base exchange, resulting in revoked shopping privileges. Furthermore, the applicant pled guilty to an assault accusation from 1997, incurring $60 in court costs. The applicant did not demonstrate efforts to mitigate these financial and criminal concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has 30 outstanding debts totaling over $31,000 and has not made any payments towards them.
Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns for 2000, 2001, and 2002 until June 2003, despite having sufficient income to pay his debts.
Applicant has a history of criminal conduct, including multiple shoplifting incidents and a guilty plea for assault, which raises concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“"Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
— Directive ¶ E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 15, 2003
Answer filedJun 8, 2003Applicant requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateApr 9, 2004

Cite For

Denial Based on Significant Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Denial Due to a Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Despite Sufficient Income to Address Debts

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant has a significant history of financial irresponsibility, with 30 outstanding debts totaling $31,486, none of which have been paid. The judge found no mitigating factors applicable to the applicant's financial situation, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Collection agency $327 $327	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Collection agency $637 $637	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Collection agency	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Bank, $2,238 $2,238	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	Bank, $5,781 $5,781	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	Business, $698 $698	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	Bank, $5,452 $5,452	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.h	Medical center $377 $377	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.i	Medical center $1,672 $1,672	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.j	Medical center, $333 $333	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.k	Company, $257 $257	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.l	Retailer, $2,554 $2,554	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.m	Credit card, $2,316 $2,316	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.n	Credit card, $2,812 $2,812	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.o	Retailer credit card $2,812 $2,812	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.p	Jeweler $214 $214	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.q	Retailer $150 $150	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.r	Retailer $2,829 $2,829	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.s	Public utility $98 $98	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.t	Retailer $229 $229	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.u	Hardware store $438 $438	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.v	Auto dealer $242 $242	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.w	Creditor	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.x	Telephone company $60 $60	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.y	Telephone company $60 $60	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.z	Retailer $651 $651	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.aa	Retailer $607 $607	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.bb	Applicant was not going to pay debts immediately.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.cc	Judgment $1,076 $1,076	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.dd	Child support arrearage $80 $80	Against Applicant	Child Support Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, citing a pattern of criminal conduct including multiple shoplifting incidents and a guilty plea for assault. The applicant's failure to file federal income tax returns further contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested in March of 1998 and 1999 for misdemeanor larceny for stealing various items from stores. Applicant was never convicted of these charges, and the charges were eventually dismissed.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	Applicant was arrested in January 1999 for shoplifting from a military base exchange store. His shopping privileges at that store were revoked, and no other action was taken.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	Applicant was accused by his former wife of assault in 1997. Applicant pled guilty and had to pay $60 in court costs.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.d	Applicant failed to file his 2000 federal income tax form.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: April 9, 2004

In re: --------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-14843 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PHILIP S. HOWE

SYNOPSIS Applicant is 33 years old. He works for a contractor in a mail room overseas. He failed to pay 30 debts incurred over several years. He admits 26 of these debts. Applicant failed to file his 2000 federal income tax form. He has three shoplifting charges, but no convictions on those charges, in 1998 and 1999, all of which he admitted. Applicant did not mitigate the financial and criminal conduct allegations and grave security concerns remain. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On May 15, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant. The SOR detailed reasons under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant, and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. In a signed and sworn statement, dated June 8, 2003, Applicant answered the SOR allegations. He requested his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On August 14, 2003, Department Counsel submitted the Department's written case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) (1) was provided to the Applicant, and he was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM by the time allowed. The response was due October 1, 2003. The case was assigned to me on January 8, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted 24 allegations in Paragraph 1 of the SOR, and denied the other six allegations in that Paragraph 1 contained in subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.v., 1.w., and 1.dd. Applicant admitted all the allegations under Paragraph 2 except subparagraph 2.e. Applicant does admit he received charges resulting from the same incident alleged in subparagraph 2.e. Those admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of fact: Applicant is a 33-year-old mail clerk employed by a defense contractor in a foreign country. He has worked there for at least three years. He is divorced, and has one child. Applicant served four years in the U.S. Army. (Item 3 at 3) Applicant did not file his 2000, 2001, and 2002 federal income tax returns until he filed all three on June 6, 2003. His income shown on those tax returns was $32,991 in 2000, then $51,934 in 2001, and $77,596 in 2002. His income is tax- free because he works outside the continental United States, and Applicant included IRS Form 2555 "Foreign Earned Income" with his tax returns. Applicant has not paid state income tax for those same periods because he does not live in a state, and has not submitted any state tax returns for the same years. Applicant's total income for these three years was $162, 521. That tax free income was more than sufficient to pay his debts in the same time period. (Item 2 at 5 to 15) Applicant's debts total $31,486 in 2003. He has not paid any of the debts, and stated to the investigator in his sworn statement that he would hire a CPA and try to restore his credit, or wait seven to ten years for the debt entries to expire from his credit report and then start anew. (Item 2 at 5; Item 8 at 1) The following table summarizes Applicant's debts and their current status which is that none of them have been repaid: SOR ¶ CREDITOR TYPE AND AMOUNT FILE EVIDENCE FINDING 1.a. Collection agency $327 Item 4 at 3, Item 5 Against Applicant 1.b. Collection agency $637 Item 4 at 3, Item 5 Against Applicant 1.c. Collection agency Item 4 at 3, Item 5 Against Applicant 1.d. Bank, $2,238 Items 2, 4 at 4, and 5 Against Applicant 1.e. Bank, $5,781 Items 2, 4 at 4, and 5 Against Applicant 1.f. Business, $698 Items 2, 4 at 5, and 5 Against Applicant 1.g. Bank, $5,452 Items2, 4 at 5, and 5 Against Applicant 1.h. Medical center $377 Items 2, 4 at 5 Against Applicant 1.i. Medical center $1,672 Items 2, 4 at 5 Against Applicant 1.j. Medical center, $333 Items 2, 4 at 5 Against Applicant 1.k. Company, $257 Items 2, 4 at 6 Against Applicant 1.l. Retailer, $2,554 Items 2, 4 at 6 Against Applicant 1.m. Credit card, $2,316 Items 2, 4 at 6 Against Applicant 1.n. Credit card, $2,812 Items 2, 4 at 6 Against Applicant 1.o. Retailer credit card $2,812 Items 2, 4 at 7 Against Applicant 1.p. Jeweler $214 Items 2, 4 at 7 Against Applicant 1.q. Retailer $150 Items 2, 4 at 7 Against Applicant 1.r. Retailer $2,829 Items 2, 4 at 8 Against Applicant 1.s. Public utility $98 Items 2, 4 at 8 Against Applicant 1.t. Retailer $229 Items 2, 4 at 8 Against Applicant 1.u. Hardware store $438 Items 2, 4 at 8 Against Applicant 1.v. Auto dealer $242 Items 2, 4 at 9 Against Applicant 1.w. Creditor Items 2, 4 at 9 Against Applicant 1.x. Telephone company $60 Items 2, 4 at 9 Against Applicant 1.y. Telephone company $60 Items 2, 4 at 9 Against Applicant 1.z. Retailer $651 Items 2, 4 at 10 Against Applicant 1.aa. Retailer $607 Items 2, 4 at 10 Against Applicant 1.bb. Applicant was not going to pay debts immediately. Items 2 and 8 Against Applicant 1.cc. Judgment $1,076 Items 2 and 5 Against Applicant 1.dd. Child support arrearage $80 Item 10 Against Applicant Applicant was arrested in March of 1998 and 1999 for misdemeanor larceny for stealing various items from stores. Applicant was never convicted of these charges, and the charges were eventually dismissed. (Items 7 and 9) Applicant was arrested in January 1999 for shoplifting from a military base exchange store. His shopping privileges at that store were revoked, and no other action was taken. (Item 6) Applicant was accused by his former wife of assault in 1997. Applicant pled guilty and had to pay $60 in court costs. (Item 2)

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527. The president has restricted eligibility for access to classified information to United States citizens "whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information." Exec. Or. 12968, Access to Classified Information Section 3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). Eligibility for a security clearance is predicted upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive. The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as to whether a person is an acceptable security risk. Enclosure 2 to the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines that must be carefully considered according to the pertinent Guideline in making the overall common sense determination required. Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and the extent of knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence (See Directive,§ E2.2.1., Enclosure 2). Because each security case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case. Moreover, although adverse information concerning a single condition may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or other behavior specified in the Guidelines. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances that indicate an applicant is at risk for mishandling classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information. ISCR Case No. 00-0277, 2001 DOHA LEXIS 335 at **6-8 (App. Bd. 2001). Once the Government has established a prima facie case by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance." ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. 2002). "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Exec . Or. 12968 § 3.1(b). Based upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find the following adjudicative guidelines most pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this case: Guideline F - Financial Considerations: An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.1. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (1) A history of not meeting financial obligations. Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1. 2.1. (3) Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.2.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None Guideline J: Criminal Conduct A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. E2.A10.1.1. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (1) Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged; E2.A10.1.2.1. (2) A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses. E2.A10.1.2.2 Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: E2.A10.1.3. (1) The criminal behavior was not recent. E2.A.10.1.3.1

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to each allegation set forth in the SOR: Under the Financial Considerations Guideline, Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 1 (a history of not meeting financial obligations) and DC 2 (an unwillingness to satisfy debts) clearly apply in this case. Applicant has 30 outstanding debts. There is no evidence that he has undertaken any efforts to pay any of these debts. His child support obligation, which he says is overpaid, has a balance due, according to the document submitted by the Government. Yet at the same time, Applicant is making a very good income and not required to pay any income taxes on that income because he earns it when working outside the continental United States. His statement to the investigator discloses his attitude toward these debts, which is that with the passage of time they will fade away from his credit record. He has made no statement about paying them, and made no effort to pay them. There are no Mitigating Conditions (MC) which apply in this case. I conclude against Applicant on this guideline. Under the Criminal Conduct guideline, the DC which apply are DC 1 (allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged) and DC 2 (multiple lesser offenses). In 1997, 1998, and 1999 Applicant engaged in three larceny (shoplifting) incidents. He pled guilty to assaulting his wife in 1997. Then, in 2001, he failed to file his federal income tax form for 2000, in violation of the federal income tax code. The information he submitted with his answer to the SOR included the 2000 tax return, and the tax returns for the two subsequent years, all filed in June 2003, demonstrating he continued to fail to file his federal tax returns. There are no MC applicable in this case under the Criminal Conduct guideline. Applicant has a pattern of failing to comply with the law. That pattern continues into the present with the failures to file timely income tax returns. Therefore, I conclude against Applicant on this guideline.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are hereby rendered as follows: Paragraph 1 Guideline F: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.j.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.l.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.m.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.n.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.o.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.p.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.q.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.r.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.s.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.t.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.u.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.v.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.w.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.x.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.y.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.z.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.aa.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.bb.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.cc.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.dd.: Against Applicant Paragraph 2 Guideline J: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.c.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.d.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.e.: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances and facts presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied. _____________________ Philip S. Howe Administrative Judge 1. The Government submitted ten items in support of the SOR.

FOOTNOTES

02-14843.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-14843.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:57:36 AM] 02-14843.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-14843.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:57:36 AM] 02-14843.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-14843.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:57:36 AM] 02-14843.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-14843.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:57:36 AM] 02-14843.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-14843.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:57:36 AM] 02-14843.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-14843.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:57:36 AM] 02-14843.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-14843.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:57:36 AM]