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

ISCR Case No. 00-0683.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Sep 17, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a review of an Administrative Judge's decision denying the applicant a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant raised several claims of error regarding the Judge's findings and conclusions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

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

applying certain Adjudicative Guidelines mitigating conditions. Applicant's history of financial difficulties and his use of a false address in order to gain a lower tuition r

Procedural History

ATE --> <!-- 09/17/2001

-->

DATE: September 17, 2001

<HR>

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 00-0683

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Peregrine

Appeal Issues

. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski issued a decision, dated May 22, 2001, in which she 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.

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 following issues: (1) whether certain findings of fact by the Administrative Judge are erroneous; (2) whether the Administrative Judge drew

conclusions that are arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by the record evidence; and (3) whether the Administrative Judge's adverse security clearance 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 January 24, 2001 to Applicant. The SOR was based on Guideline F (Financial

Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). A hearing was held on April 3, 2001. The Administrative Judge issued a written

decision, dated May 22, 2001, in which she concluded it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The

case is before the Board on Applicant's appeal from the Judge's adverse decision.

<CENTER>Appeal Issues<A HREF="#N_1_"> (1)</A></CENTER>

1. Whether certain findings of fact by the Administrative Judge are erroneous. The Administrative Judge made extensive findings of fact concerning the matters covered

by the SOR. On appeal, Applicant does not challenge most of the Judge's findings. However, Applicant does argue: (a) the Administrative Judge erred by finding that

around June 2000 Applicant settled one delinquent debt for less than the full amount; (b) the Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant did not complete an

extension course with a local university; (c) the Administrative Judge erred by finding that he intentionally used a false address in order to gain a lower tuition rate at a

technical school; and (d) the Administrative Judge erred by finding that Applicant sought to downplay the seriousness of his conduct under SOR paragraph 2.c.

The Board does not review a case de novo. Rather, the Board addresses the material issues raised by the parties to determine whether there is factual or legal error.

There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party must raise claims of error with specificity and identify how the Administrative Judge committed factual or

legal error. See Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3. Accordingly, the Board need

not review the factual findings by the Judge that Applicant has not challenged on appeal.

As to the factual findings challenged by Applicant, the B

Conclusion

h contains statements pertinent to the matter cover by SOR

paragraph 2.c, his effort to "correct" any errors in it now is far too late. If Applicant believed that his written statement contained any factual errors, he should have raised

the matter at the hearing and brought it to the Judge's attention for