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

ISCR Case No. 02-33057

Appeal Board

Decided Jan 27, 2005 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a review of an unfavorable security clearance decision based on financial difficulties and falsification of a security clearance application. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no error in the findings or the decision itself.

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

t has not shown that the Judge's findings about his delinquent debts or his falsification of a security clearance application are erroneous. The security significance of Applicant's history of financial difficulties and his falsification of a secu

Appeal Issues

Order 10865 and

Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended.

The following issues have been raised on appeal: (1) whether the Administrative Judge's findings of fact about Applicant's financial situation

and falsification of a security clearance application are supported by substantial record evidence; and (2) whether the Administrative Judge's

unfavorable decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 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 Judg

Appeal Board Summary Disposition

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

fact are supported by such relevant e