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

ISCR Case No. 00-0365

Appeal Board

Decided May 16, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved an applicant contesting the denial of her security clearance based on financial difficulties and past disciplinary issues. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's suitability for a security clearance. The applicant's new evidence and explanations were not considered, as they were not part of the original record.

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

Appearances

ial difficulties and her past disciplinary problems reflect a reasonable interpretation of record evidence. Applicant's promise to pay off her unresolved debts in the future does not constitute evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Conduct or circumstanc

Procedural History

es that, if considered in isolation, might not warrant an adverse security clearance decision still can be evidence of poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness that supports an overall adverse security clearance decision in light of the totality of the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.

-->   <!-- 00-0365.a1

-->   <!-- 05/16/2001

-->

DATE: May 16, 2001

<HR>

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 00-0365

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

William S. Fields, Esq., Acting Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski issued a decision, dated February 8, 2001, in which she concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to

grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant ap

Appeal Issues

pealed. For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.

This 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 issue of whether the Administrative Judge's adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated September 8, 2000 to Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline F

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

Applicant submitted an answer to the SOR, in which she indicated she wanted a decision made in her case without a hearing. A File of Relevant Material (FORM) was

prepared, and Applicant was given a copy of the FORM. Applicant submitted a response to the FORM. The case was then assigned to the Administrative Judge for

disposition.

The Administrative Judge issued a written decision, dated February 8, 2001. The Judge entered formal findings in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs

1.c., 2.a., 2.b., 2.c., 2.d., and 3. Because those formal findings are not at issue on appeal, the Board need not address the Judge's findings and conclusions about the

matters covered by those SOR paragraphs.

The Administrative Judge made findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial difficulties, and concluded the record evidence showed that Applicant had

demonstrated a disregard for her legitimate financial obligations. The Judge evaluated Applicant's explanations and the record evidence of her efforts to deal with her

unresolved debts and concluded that, except for the debt covered by SOR paragraph 1.c., Applicant had not presented evidence sufficient to explain, extenuate, or

mitigate her history of unresolved financial difficulties. The Judge entered a formal finding in favor of Applicant with respect to SOR paragraph 1.c., but entered formal

findings against Applicant with respect to SOR paragraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., 1.g., and 1.h.

The Administrative Judge made findings of fact about Applicant's history of disciplinary problems with one employer in 1995 and 1996, and with another employer in

1999. The Judge concluded that the record evidence concerning those disciplinary problems indicated a pattern of dishonesty or rules violations that raised questions

about her suitability for a security clearance. The Judge evaluated Applicant's explanation

Conclusion

s and the record evidence about her disciplinary problems and concluded that

Applicant had not presented evidence sufficient to explain, extenuate, or mitigate her history of disciplinar