KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Judge’s findings are supported by substantial record evidence.  The Judge’s
conclusion that Applicant knowingly provided false information on his security clearance
application is sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-23685.a1
DATE: 03/24/2008
DATE: March 24, 2008
In Re:
---------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23685
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On January 30, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
The Judge’s favorable decision as to subparagraphs 1(a-d) and (h-j) of Guideline F is not at issue in this appeal.1
 
“Applicant testified that in response to the question concerning the tax liens, he knew of the liens but thought2
the liens were against him personally and not against property since he owned no property . . . His reading of the question
is . . . unreasonable . . . by a college graduate.  Likewise, Applicant stated he did not know he had debts past due over
180 days or 90 days.  Applicant knew [of the tax liens].  He thought he possibly could have other debts but he did not
even make an effort to learn of his debts before he completed the security clearance application.  His actions in not
learning of the exact nature of his debts before responding to the questions on the [SCA] show a deliberate action to omit
relevant security matters.”  Decision at 9.  
SOR 1(i, j).3
2
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
September 17, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings are
based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary,
capricious, and contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.   1
The Judge found that Applicant had unpaid debts, including two federal income tax liens of
$68,588.55 and $18,951.24 respectively.  He also had a charged off “bank account debt” for $110.
Applicant denied knowledge of this debt and had taken no action “ to inquire or dispute” it.  Decision
at 4.  Another debt, to a car rental agency, was in dispute at the time of the decision.  In 1987,
Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  He continued to incur debt, however, and filed
again for bankruptcy protection, under Chapter 13, in 1991.  He was discharged in 1998.  Regarding
the tax liens, Applicant did not file federal income tax returns for many years between 1980 and
2005.  Additionally, when asked on his security clearance application (SCA) if he had debts that had
been delinquent over 90 days and over 180 days respectively, he answered “no,” despite these tax
liens and the bank debt.
We have examined the Judge’s decision and conclude that his findings are supported by
substantial record evidence.  The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant knowingly provided false
information on his SCA is sustainable.   The Judge weighed the evidence supplied by Applicant and2
considered the application of relevant mitigating conditions, finding in Applicant’s favor on some
of the Guideline F security concerns, including those pertaining to his bankruptcy proceedings.  3
Nevertheless, the record supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant failed to meet his burden
of persuasion that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security for him to have a
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption4
against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990),th
cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts
to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  “The general standard is that a clearance
may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  
3
security clearance.   Accordingly, the Board holds that the Judge’s decision is neither arbitrary,4
capricious, nor contrary to law. 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jean E. Smallin         
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields        
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board