CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-03829.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-03829.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-03829.h1

deniedJun 30, 2006· Hon. Christopher Graham· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of criminal conduct from 1984 to 2003, including multiple DUI convictions and drug-related offenses such as possession of a controlled substance, sale of a non-narcotic controlled substance, and trafficking in controlled substances. This criminal history also included charges for driving while suspended and an insufficient funds check.

Additionally, the applicant provided false information on his security clearance application (SF 86). He omitted several criminal charges and convictions, including DUIs in 1984, 1993 (dismissed), and 2002 (dismissed), as well as drug-related offenses in 1987 and 1989. He also falsely stated that he was not delinquent on any debts over 90 or 180 days.

The applicant had over $17,000 in unpaid debts, which he failed to mitigate. The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under the cited guidelines. Furthermore, the applicant's incarceration for over a year rendered him ineligible for a security clearance under 10 U.S.C. § 986.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to a pattern of criminal conduct spanning from 1984 to 2003, including multiple DUI and drug-related offenses.
The applicant provided false answers on his security clearance application regarding criminal charges and delinquent debts.
The applicant has a history of unpaid debts totaling over $17,000, which he failed to adequately address or mitigate.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1appliedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition
E2.A5.1.2.2appliedPersonal Conduct Disqualifying Condition
E2.A6.1.2.1appliedFinancial Considerations Disqualifying Condition

Key Rule Quoted

“[No] one has a 'right' to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1998)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 2, 2005
Answer filedNov 25, 2005
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Decision dateJun 30, 2006

Cite For

Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
False Answers on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing false answers on the security clearance application regarding criminal conduct and delinquent debts. The applicant's lack of honesty and untruthfulness were significant factors in the decision, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant gave false answers on his security clearance application about alcohol or drug related charges and delinquent debts.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant omitted his charges and/or convictions for DUI in 1984, possession of a controlled substance in 1987, sale of non-narcotic controlled substance in 1989, charges of a DUI in 1993 (dismissed), and a DUI charged in 2002 (dismissed).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant answered 'No' to questions regarding being over 180 days delinquent on any debts and being currently over 90 days delinquent on any debts.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant faced significant financial concerns, with a total of 34 delinquent debts amounting to $17,804.46. The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline F, concluding that the applicant had a history of not meeting financial obligations and failed to provide satisfactory evidence of efforts to resolve his debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a–3.z	26 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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

Bond Amendment: the decision notes incarceration over one year or a dishonorable discharge — a statutory bar to SCI / Special Access / Restricted Data eligibility absent a waiver.

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, indicating a pattern of criminal conduct from 1984 to 2003, including multiple DUI offenses and drug-related charges. The applicant's admissions and the length of incarceration contributed to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Poss/controlled substance	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Diversion or Deferred	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.b	DUI	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	Poss/controlled substance	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.d	Trafficking/control subs	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	Sale of non-narcotic controlled substance	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.f	DUI	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.g	Insuf Funds Check	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.h	Drv while suspended	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.i	DUI	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.j	Drv while suspended; seat belt violation	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.k	False answers on SF 86	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.l	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.m	Served greater than 1 year incarceration (low confidence)	Unknown	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: June 30, 2006

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

CR Case No. 05-03829 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM

SYNOPSIS Applicant admitted criminal conduct from 1984 until 2003. His admissions of criminal activity show a pattern of criminal conduct. He also gave false answers on his security clearance application about alcohol or drug related charges and delinquent debts. He has a history of unpaid debt. He failed to mitigate the security concerns about criminal conduct, personal conduct, and financial considerations. Because he served 14 months imprisonment, the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 apply and he is ineligible for a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On November 2, 2005, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant pursuant to 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. The SOR alleged facts under Guideline J (criminal conduct), Guideline E (personal conduct), and Guideline F (financial considerations) which precluded DOHA from making a preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's security clearance. The SOR recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted or denied. On November 25, 2005, and December 14, 2005, Applicant responded to the allegations in the SOR, and requested a decision without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a file of relevant material (FORM) in support of the government's case, a copy of which was received by Applicant on March 21, 2006. Applicant was afforded the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation by April 22, 2006. Applicant filed no response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on May 16, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant has admitted to the SOR allegations in subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., 1.h., 1.i., 1.j., and1.k. pertaining to Guideline J (criminal conduct), and denied all allegations pertaining to Guideline E (personal conduct), and denied all 34 allegations under Guideline F (financial considerations). His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. I make the following additional findings of fact. Applicant is a divorced, 50-year-old employee of a federal contractor seeking to obtain a security clearance. (1) He was employed by this contractor in December 2001. (2) Criminal Conduct. He has a history of criminal conduct as shown in the following table. SOR DATE CRIME PLEA/CONVICTION JAIL/FINE/ § PROBATION 1.a. 1/1984 Poss/controlled substance Diversion program Type of probation; no charges 1.b. 8/1984 DUI Guilty 12 days/$1,000/3 yr prob; DL susp 1 yr 1.c. 12/1987 Poss/controlled substance Guilty 2 years 1.d. 10/1988 Trafficking/control subs Guilty 2 years; $100 restitution 2 years conc w/ 1987 plea; $100; served 1.e. 5/1989 Sale of non-narcotic controlled Guilty 14 months substance 1.f. 8/1993 DUI Dismissed 1.g. 8/1994 Insuf Funds Check warrant active as of 5/2004 1.h. 7/1996 Drv while suspended 1.i. 4/2002 DUI Dismissed 1.j., 1/2003 Drv while suspended; seat belt Found guilty $500 unpaid 1.k. violation 1.l. 3/2004 False answers on SF 86 Not charges under 18 U.S.C. §1001 1.m. Served greater than 1 year 10 U.S.C. § 986 Ineligible for security clearance incarceration He admitted all except the insufficient funds check. Because he served a term of incarceration greater than one year, the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 (3) apply. In meritorious cases, this section authorizes the Secretary of Defense to issue a waiver. Applicant requested a waiver in his response to the SOR. (4) Personal Conduct. He caused to be submitted an electronic security clearance application on March 8, 2004. (5) The SOR paragraph 2 alleges three false answers on his security clearance application. He admitted to these in his answer to the SOR. Question 24 on the form asked: Have you been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs? For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been "sealed" or otherwise stricken from the court record. The single exception to this requirement is for certain convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 212 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. (6) He answered "No." In response to Question 38. "In the last 7 years, have you ever been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)," Applicant answered "No". In response to Question 39. "Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt)," he answered "No." (7) He gave the same answers to substantially the same questions on an earlier security clearance application. (8) Financial Considerations. SOR paragraph 3 enumerates 34 delinquent debts attributed to Applicant totaling $17,804.46, as of June 2, 2005. He claimed he knew nothing about the debts until his DSS interview on May 8, 2003. (9) I was living in Montana at the time. I do not recall the cable TV account. In any event, if the collection accounts are legitimate they are being paid through credit management. I acknowledge the remainder of the collection accounts. Most were from my time up in Montana. I was living with a woman with 7 kids and was trying to help her out financially. I had to take a lower paying job when I moved to Montana. I do recall there being late or delinquent bills when I lived in Montana. Since I left Montana in November '01, I have not incurred any other delinquent debt to the best of my knowledge. I have no credit cards or loans. I am trying to clean up my credit report by working with credit management and intend to continue to make my payments to them until the accounts are paid in full. (10) His assumed she paid the bills. After he left Montana he continued to send her money. Although Applicant denied the debts in his answer to the SOR, in his statements he admitted he owed the debts. (11) In comparing the credit report of May 13, 2004, with the report of January 25, 2006, all but two debts on the 2004 report appear on the 2006 report. (12) The record is unclear whether the these two debts were paid or merely dropped off the report due to their age. Three new debts appear on the 2006 report. He provided no documentary evidence to prove he paid any debts. Applicant has had some periods of unemployment but does not list the dates. Between August 2002 and September 2004, he underwent seven financially debilitating heart surgery procedures, during which times of hospitalization and recovery he was unemployed. This only increased his inability to resolve debt. (13) However, there is no evidence of the financial impact of these periods of unemployment.

POLICIES

"[No] one has a 'right' to a security clearance." (14) 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." (15) 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 coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing use, handling, and protection of classified information." (16) Eligibility for a security clearance may be adjudicated using the security guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. In evaluating the security worthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive: nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; frequency and recency of the conduct; age of the Applicant; motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, wilful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences involved; absence or presence of rehabilitation; and probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. (17) The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an applicant's security suitability. (18) Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. (19) An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance." (20) A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence. The government, therefore, has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or his own. The "clearly consistent with the national interest" standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant's suitability for access in favor of the government. (21) Decisions under this Directive include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Applicant's allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism are not at issue in these proceedings. Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 specifically provides industrial security decisions shall be "in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned." Security clearance decisions cover many characteristics of an applicant other than allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism. Having considered the SOR allegations and having reviewed the record evidence as a whole, I conclude the relevant adjudicative guidelines to be applied here are those conditions listed under: Guideline J (criminal conduct) E2.A10.1.1. (A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness). Guideline E (personal conduct) E2.A5.1.1. (Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information). Guideline F (financial considerations) E2.A6.1.1. (An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Unexplained affluence is often linked to proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts).

CONCLUSION

Criminal Conduct The government established its case under Guideline J. Applicant admitted 10 of 11 charges against him. Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) E2.A10.1.2.1. (Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless whether the person was formally charged) applies. Because he served 14 months incarceration, he is ineligible for a security clearance under 10 U.S.C. § 986. False answers on a security clearance application constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, also a crime. This allegation is proved as noted below. Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions E2.A10.1.3.1. (The criminal behavior was not recent) and CC DC E2.A10.1.3.2. (The crime was an isolated incident) fail because there is a pattern or history of criminal activity running from 1984 through 2003. The common denominators in most of these crimes are drugs and alcohol. There is no evidence of rehabilitation. I find against Applicant on Guideline J. Personal Conduct The government has established its case under Guideline E. Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) E2.A5.1.2.2. (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities) applies. He omitted his charges and/or convictions for DUI in 1984, possession of a controlled substance in 1987, sale of non-narcotic controlled substance in 1989, charges of a DUI in 1993 (dismissed), and a DUI charged in 2002 (dismissed). Applicant claims he omitted the debts because he did not know about them until his DSS interview on May 8, 2003. The problem for Applicant is that he prepared a security clearance application in 2001, his interview was in 2003, and he answered these three questions on his 2004 security clearance application the same as he did on his 2001 application. Based upon the evidence in the record, the answers are false and it evidences Applicant's lack of honesty and untruthfulness. No mitigating conditions apply. I conclude Guideline E against Applicant. Financial Considerations The government established its case under Guideline F. Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) E2.A6.1.2.1. arises where there is (A history of not meeting financial obligations). Similarly, FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3. applies where the information shows an (Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts). The available information demonstrates Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations. He has been delinquent in payments on numerous accounts. Various conditions can mitigate the security concerns arising from financial difficulties. The Directive sets out Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) E2.A6.1.3.3. (The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation). Applicant has had some periods of unemployment. He had financially debilitating expenses incurred with several heart surgeries. Given the wording of this mitigating condition, it is not unreasonable to construe it as covering a situation where the record evidence shows that events beyond an applicant's control resulted in, or significantly contributed to the applicant's debts becoming delinquent, the applicant becoming unable to deal with or otherwise address debts that had become delinquent previously, and the applicant incurring new, unforeseen debts that aggravate or exacerbate the applicant's financial situation. (22) FC MC E2.A6.1.3.3. applies. FC MC E2.A6.1.3.4. (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control) might be applicable. Applicant says he has sought financial counseling but provided no documentary evidence to show how the plan resolves his indebtedness. FC MC E2.A6.1.3.4. does not apply. FC MC E2.A6.1.3.6. (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve bad debts) may apply. Notwithstanding his medical problems and his periods of unemployment, he has not provided satisfactory proof that his financial delinquencies are being resolved. The 2006 credit report indicates a lack of serious efforts at debt reduction. FC MC E2.A6.1.3.6. does not apply. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant. I carefully weighed all of the evidence, and I have applied the disqualifying and mitigating conditions as listed under the applicable adjudicative guideline. I also considered the whole person concept as contemplated by the Directive in ¶ 6.3. A fair and commonsense assessment of the positive and negative information about Applicant's history, his truthfulness with the security clearance process, his pattern of criminal conduct, the application of 10 U.S.C. 986, and his financial delinquencies, raise sufficient doubts about Applicant's ability to protect classified information and to exercise the requisite good judgment and discretion expected of one in whom the government entrusts its interests.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1. Guideline J: 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 Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a. Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.b. Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.c. Against Applicant Paragraph 3. 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 Subparagraph 1.ee. Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.ff. Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.gg. Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.hh. Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's security clearance. Clearance is denied. Christopher Graham Administrative Judge 1. Item 8 (Applicant's Application for National Security Clearance SF86, December 22, 2001) at 1-3. 2. Id. at 2. 3. 10 U.S.C. § 986 reads: "(1) has been convicted in any court of the United States of a crime, was sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and was incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than one year." 4. Items 3 and 5 (Applicant's Answers, dated November 25, 2005, and December 14, 2005) at 3. 5. Item 13 (Applicant's Security Clearance Application, dated March 8, 2004) at 1. 6. Item 8, supra, note 1, at 8. 7. Item 8, supra, at 9. 8. Item 8, supra, note 1, at 1. 9. Item 12 (Applicant's Statement, dated May 8, 2003) at 2. 10. Item 12, supra, note 9, at 2. 11. Item 3, supra, at 2; Item 5, supra, at 3; Item 9 (Credit Report, dated December 31, 2001) at 3-6; Item 12 (Applicant's Statement, dated May 8, 2003) at 12; Item 14 (Credit Report, dated May 13, 2004) at 2-5; Item 16 (Personal Financial Statement, dated September 1, 2004) at 2; Item 17 (Applicant's Affidavit, dated September 2, 2004) at 1-3; Item 18 (Credit Report, dated June 2, 2005) at 1-2; and Item 19 (Credit Report, dated January 25, 2006) at 1-2. 12. Item 14, supra, note 8, at 2-5; Item 19, supra, not e 8, at 1-2. 13. Item 17 (Affidavit of Applicant, dated September 2, 2004, at 9-12. 14. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1998). 15. Id., at 527. 16. Exec. Or. 12968, Access to Classified Information § 3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). 17. Egan, supra, at 531. 18. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). 19. See ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 20. Id., at 3. 21. See Egan; Directive ¶ E2.2.2. 22. ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2 (App. Bd. June 5, 2006).

FOOTNOTES

05-03829.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM] 05-03829.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM] 05-03829.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM] 05-03829.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM] 05-03829.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM] 05-03829.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM] 05-03829.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM] 05-03829.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-03829.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:46:16 PM]