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

ISCR Case No. 02-07138

Appeal Board

Decided Dec 9, 2003 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a review of an unfavorable security clearance decision based on the Applicant's financial difficulties. The Applicant argued that the Administrative Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns had not been mitigated. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial history and efforts to resolve debts.

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

ulties. As the trier of fact, the Judge had to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. Applicant's disagreement with some of the Judge's conclusions is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.

-->   <!-- 02-07138.a1

-->   <!-- 12/09/2003

-->

DATE: December 9, 2003

<HR>

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

<HR>

ISCR Case No. 02-07138

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued the Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated February 28, 2003, which stated the reasons

why DOHA proposed to deny or revoke Applicant's access to classified information. The SOR was based upon Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and E

(Personal Conduct). Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley issued an unfavorable security clearance decision, dated September 11, 2003.

Applicant appealed the Administrative Judge's unfavorable 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 following issue: whether the Administrative Judge erred by concluding that the security concerns raised by Applicant's

indebtedness had not been mitigated. For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.

<CENTER>Scope of Review</CENTER>

On appeal, 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. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32. See also ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 23, 2001) at pp. 2-3

(discussing reasons why party must raise claims of error with specificity).

When the rulings or conclusions of an Administrative Judge are challenged, the Board must consider whether they are: (1) arbitrary or capricious; or (2)

contrary to law. Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.3. In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious,

the Board will review the Judge's decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its

conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of

judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so

implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 97-0435 (July 14, 1998) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court

decision). In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law, the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of

Executive Order 10865, the Directive, or other applicable federal law. Compliance with state or local law is not required because security clearance

adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense pursuant to federal law. See U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). See, e.g.,

ISCR Case No. 00-0423 (June 8, 2001) at p. 3 (citing Supreme Court decisions).

When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Board must determine whether "[t]he Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported

by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record. In

making this review, the Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of the Administrative Judge." Directive, Additional Procedural

Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. The Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence supporting a Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence

that fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting those findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reaso

Appearances

unfavorable evidence or vice versa. Applicant's disagreement with some of the Judge's conclusions is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner

Conclusion

determine whether "[t]he Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported

by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accep