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

ISCR Case No. 00-0222

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 7, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a challenge to the Administrative Judge's finding that the Applicant intentionally falsified his financial history on a security clearance application. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, concluding that the findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the adverse decision was warranted based on the Applicant's unresolved financial issues and falsification. The appeal was denied.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Appeal Board Decision

-->   <!-- 00-0222.a1

-->   <!-- 03/07/2001

-->

DATE: March 7, 2001

<HR>

In Re:

-----------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 00-0222

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Joseph Testan issued a decision dated September 29, 2000 in which he concluded it is not clearly consistent

with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant appealed. For the reasons set forth

below, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.

The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated

January 2, 1992, as amended.

Applicant's appeal presents the issues of whether the Administrative Judge erred by basing his entire opinion on an erroneous

finding that Applicant intentionally falsified his financial history on his security clearance application, and whether the

Administrative Judge's adverse decision is not warranted because Applicant is not a security risk.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant on May 19, 2000. The SOR was

predicated on Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

Applicant requested a hearing which was held on August 29, 2000. The Administrative Judge issued an unfavorable decision

dated September 29, 2000. Applicant appealed.<A HREF="#N_1_"> (1)</A>

<CENTER>Appeal Issues</CENTER>

Applicant asserts that the Administrative Judge made an erroneous finding that Applicant inten

Appearances

ASE --> <!-- 00-0222.a1

-->   <!-- 03/07/2001

-->

DATE: March 7, 2001

<HR>

In Re:

-----------------

SSN: -----------

Appl

Procedural History

N>

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Joseph Testan issued a decision dated September 29, 2000 in which he concluded it is not clearly consistent

with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant appealed. For the reasons set forth

below, the Board affirms

Appeal Issues

Administrative Judge's decision.

The Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated

January 2, 1992, as amended.

Applicant's appeal presents the issues of whether the Administrative Judge erred by basing his entire opinion on an erroneous

finding that Applicant intentionally falsified his financial history on his security clearance application, and whether the

Administrative Judge's adverse decision is not warranted because Applicant is not a security risk.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant on May 19, 2000. The SOR was

predicated on Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

Applicant requested a hearing which was held on August 29, 2000. The Administrative Judge issued an unfavorable decision

dated September 29, 2000. Applicant appealed.<A HREF="#N_1_"> (1)</A>

<CENTER>Appeal Issues</CENTER>

Applicant asserts that the Administrative Judge made an erroneous finding that Applicant intentionally falsified his financial

history on his security clearance application and then based his entir

Conclusion

adverse decision on that finding. Applicant's argument is

unpersuasive.

The Administrative Judge's finding of falsificati