KEYWORD:  Guideline E
DIGEST:  The Government failed to establish by substantial evidence that Applicant deliberately
failed to disclose debts in his security clearance application.  Adverse decision reversed.
CASE NO: 15-06990.a1
DATE: 01/11/2018
DATE:  January 11, 2018
In Re:
------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-06990
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
April 27, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision – security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of DoD Directive 5220.6
(Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On
October 16, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal:  whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we reverse the Judge’s unfavorable
decision.
The SOR alleged that Applicant falsified material facts in his 2012 security clearance
application (SCA) by deliberately failing to disclose a state tax lien and seven other delinquent
debts.  The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the state tax lien allegation and against him on the
allegation concerning the other debts.  
In his appeal brief, Applicant provided character reference letters that he did not previously
submit to the Judge.  Those letters constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board cannot consider. 
Directive ¶ E3.1. 29.
Applicant also claims that he did his best in filling out the SCA, including listing his debts. 
He notes that he listed some delinquent debts in his SCA and argues, why would he list some debts,
if he intended to conceal any debts.  Applicant raised this same issue below and the Judge addressed
it by stating: 
Applicant did, in fact, list three past-due debts; and avers that the largest, alleged
unlisted debt, for $1,060 (b.(2)), is a duplicate of one of those he did disclose. . .  He
further avers, “I did my best to list everything I had knowledge of.”  Even assuming
his averment as to the duplicate past-due debt is correct, it is clear from his January 
2013 Subject Interview, to which Applicant had no objection, he was aware of at
least four of the six remaining past-due debts (b.(3), b.(4), b.(6), and b.(7)). 
Furthermore, without letters of support from those who know Applicant and who can
testify as to his truthfulness and veracity, I cannot find that Applicant’s not listing
six past-due debts, totaling in excess of $1,100, was a simple oversight.  This
allegation is found against Applicant.1  
A review of the subject interview does not support the Judge’s finding that Applicant was
“aware” of four debts when he filled out his SCA.  Instead, the subject interview reflects that
Applicant “thought” each of those debts was for a specific purpose.  His thinking a debt was for a
specific purpose, after its existence is brought to his attention during the subject interview, does not
equate to him being “aware” of that debt when he filled out the SCA.   Rather, the subject interview
reads in a way consistent with Applicant’s reaction to each debt as they were presented.  We
conclude the Judge erred in making that finding of fact.
We also find persuasive Applicant’s argument about disclosing delinquent debts in his SCA. 
In that document, he disclosed three delinquent debts totaling about $5,600.  As the Judge noted,
excluding the alleged debt that was a duplicate of one Applicant had disclosed, he did not disclose
six debts totaling about $1,100.  Applicant appropriately raises the question of why would he
disclose about 80% of his indebtedness and deliberately omit the remaining 20%.   He adequately
put the Government on notice of his financial problems.  It is not reasonable to conclude that his
1 Decision at 2.  
failure to disclose the relatively small percentage of his remaining indebtedness constituted
falsification.  
Applicant has consistently denied that he falsified his SCA.  The burden was on the
Government to establish either by direct or circumstantial evidence that Applicant deliberately
falsified his SCA.  Directive ¶ E3.1.14.  From our review of the record, we conclude that the
Government failed to establish by substantial evidence that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose
debts in his SCA.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004) for the
proposition that proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s state
of mind when the omission occurred.  Based on the foregoing, the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.  
Order
The Decision is REVERSED.    
Signed:  Michael Ra’anan          
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields           
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy               
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board