Small DOHA Seal

2019 Industrial Security Clearance Decisions

 

These 683 decisions pertain to the adjudication of security clearance cases for contractor personnel under DoD Directive 5220.6, which implements Executive Order 10865.

Other years: 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Guideline E; Guideline F

06/27/2019

While res judicata has some applicability in DOHA cases, the Government is never estopped from considering matters from a prior adjudication, especially when, as in the case before us, there is subsequent misconduct. In this case, Applicant went AWOL from his job in 2013 and made numerous false statements to his employers about his circumstances. That he did so despite having received a punitive discharge for a six-year incident of AWOL several years earlier was a matter that the Judge was entitled to consider in evaluating Applicant’s case for mitigation and rehabilitation. The Judge did not err by admitting and considering evidence of Applicant’s earlier misconduct. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02520.a1


Guideline F

06/26/2019

Applicant contends that the Judge erred by “doubling” the correct amount of his assets. The Judge found that Applicant had “a stocks and bonds investment portfolio and 401(k) account statement reflecting that [he] has assets valued at well over $2 million, plus other bank account and IRA statements showing his substantial net worth.” In his appeal brief, Applicant challenges that finding by pointing to his testimony that he had about $1.2 million in stocks and bonds. We note that, on a Personal Financial Statement, Applicant listed his total assets as being over $1,742,000, which included real estate, stocks and bonds, and other assets. Even though the Judge may have miscalculated Applicant’s total assets, this was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02302.a1


Guideline F

06/26/2019

Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that she has not demonstrated that her problems are resolved. She contends that there is no evidence to show that her financial difficulties will persist. However, it is an applicant’s job to present evidence in mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s bankruptcy is too recent to establish a track record of debt payment and thereby meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01762.a1


Guideline F

06/26/2019

In this case, we note that Applicant’s tax problems date back to 2010 and also include tax deficiencies in a number of subsequent years. Since the inception of his tax problems,significant gaps have occurred during which Applicant has not demonstrated any meaningful efforts to resolve those problems. Additionally, his latest installment agreement was established after the SOR was issued. Given the record that was before him, the Judge did not err in concluding that Applicant had failed to meet his burden to mitigate the security concerns arising from the Federal tax liens. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03462.a2


Guideline B, Guideline F

06/25/2019

The contention of Applicant’s Counsel that Applicant’s relationship with his sisters has “greatly diminished since the passing of his mother” fails for a lack of specificity because he has failed to cite to any record evidence to support that proposition. The appealing party has the burden of raising and demonstrating factual or legal error by the Judge and must set forth its assignments of error with specificity. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01818.a1


Guideline E; Guideline H

06/25/2019

First, even in the absence of any security violations, the Government can deny or revoke access to classified information based on the existence of facts and circumstances that indicate an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information. Second, the conclusions of DOHA Judges are often subjective in nature. As we have noted in the past, security clearance decisions are not an exact science but rather are predictive judgments about a person’s security suitability in light of that person’s past conduct and present circumstances. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02225.a1


Guideline F

06/24/2019

In his appeal brief, Applicant indicated that he did not recall the discussion at the hearing or in the summary of his background interview that his late tax filings started in 2011. He further states that his late filings started with his 2001 tax returns following his wife’s car accident. From our reading of his brief, it is unclear what point Applicant is trying to make regarding his 2011 tax returns. We note, however, that Applicant admitted at the hearing that he failed to file his 2011 Federal and state tax returns in a timely manner. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-05820.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

06/21/2019

Applicant failed to file Federal and state income tax returns for over a decade and has outstanding tax debt exceeding $20,000. He also has other outstanding debtS totaling $17,000. There has been no good-faith effort to resolve his taxes or his debts. Applicant also deliberately failed to accurately answer questions concerning his failure to file his tax returns on his e-QIP and in response to interrogatories. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01482.h1


Financial

06/21/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns related to his financial delinquencies. His request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00538.h1


Financial

06/21/2019

Applicant is or has filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy relief to resolve a number of delinquent debts he incurred during his marriage. Since his divorce in 2012, and when his child support substantially increased, he could not afford to pay the marital debt. Since his divorce, he has incurred no new debt. Applicant has made a good faith effort to resolve his debts and sufficient mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04110.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

06/19/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. Applicant's delinquent debts are not resolved or in a payment plan. He falsified his 2016 SCA. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02852.h1


Foreign Influence

06/19/2019

Applicant’s foreign contacts with Russia do not pose a security risk. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02550.h1


Drugs

06/19/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02407.h1


Financial

06/19/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by unresolved child-support arrearage and an unpaid judgment. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01964.h1


Financial

06/18/2019

Applicant’s history of financial indebtedness has not been mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02468.h1


Financial

06/18/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02262.h1


Financial

06/17/2019

Applicant, a retired Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, experienced financial difficulties while stationed overseas with his family. He successfully addressed most of his debts through a short sale of his U.S. residence and a debt consolidation program. A few minor debts could not be resolved through the debt consolidation repayment process, and upon his return to the U.S. and his retirement from the Marine Corps, he was able to clear the debts from his record, to pay them off, or in one case, to enter in to a short repayment plan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02373.h1


Foreign Influence

06/17/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the foreign influence guideline. He did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the property interests in South Korea. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02259.h1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct; Alcohol

06/17/2019

Applicant has not mitigated security concerns raised by the excessive alcohol consumption, personal conduct, and criminal misconduct underlying his two DUI charges, the most recent of which occurred in 2017 and for which he is currently on probation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00975.h1


Guideline F

06/17/2019

Although Applicant has pointed out some errors, none of them merit any corrective action. Even when considered collectively, the errors are harmless. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00754.a1


Alcohol Consumption and Criminal Conduct

06/14/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under the alcohol consumption security concerns as well as the criminal conduct security concerns. He met his burden. Eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01926.h1


Criminal Conduct; Sexual Behavior

06/13/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the criminal conduct and sexual behavior security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01987.h1


Psychological Conditions, Personal Conduct, Alcohol Consumption, Drugs

06/13/2019

As a result of a 2017 psychological evaluation ordered by the DOD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, a licensed clinical psychologist diagnosed Applicant with alcohol use disorder, stimulant use disorder, and delusional disorder, in addition to identifying psychological characteristics that make Applicant a security risk. An independent evaluation procured by Applicant also resulted in a negative assessment of Applicant’s ongoing security worthiness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01062.h1


Alcohol

06/13/2019

Applicant incurred four alcohol-related offenses between June 2012 and June 2015. Since then, however, he has largely abstained from drinking. Through marriage, fatherhood, and overall maturity, he has shown that his alcohol issues are in the past and unlikely to recur. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his alcohol-related conduct. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00953.h1


Foreign Influence

06/13/2019

Applicant mitigated security concerns raised by his foreign contacts and property in Egypt. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04318.h1


Financial

06/12/2019

Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns about his unpaid taxes, his failure to timely file some of his federal and state tax returns, and other financial problems. His request for continued security clearance eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-02591.h1


Drugs

06/12/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02216.h1


Psychological Conditions

06/11/2019

Applicant did not mitigate psychological conditions security concerns raised by her diagnosis of Schizophrenia, First Episode, currently in partial remission, and Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02536.h1


Alcohol, Criminal Conduct

06/11/2019

Applicant was found guilty of drinking and driving in 2013 and in 2016. He was released from his most recent period of unsupervised probation only a month before the hearing. While he has comported his behavior and has fulfilled the courts’ mandates concerning those convictions, insufficient time has passed to demonstrate he is in control of both his alcohol consumption and his capability of being a responsible driver. I find Applicant failed to mitigate alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01588.h1


Financial

06/11/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns related to her financial delinquencies, and failure to file all of her delinquent tax returns. Her request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03809.h1


Guideline F

06/11/2019

The Judge erred by failing to issue a clearance decision on remand. Case remanded. CASE NO: 17-03043.a2


Guideline F

06/10/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a document that is not in the record and a lengthy description of her financialhistory with several statements of fact that were not previously presented to DOHA. The AppealBoard is prohibited from considering new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01360.a1


Financial

06/07/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02305.h1


Financial

06/07/2019

Applicant’s debts arose largely during his second marriage, after his wife lost her job and they fell behind on household expenses and other debts. Applicant’s debts are now largely resolved and are under control. Applicant provided sufficient evidence to mitigate financial security concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for continued access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02303.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

06/07/2019

Applicant’s marijuana use was infrequent and occurred several years ago. Drug involvement security concerns are mitigated. He did not provide sufficient information to mitigate personal conduct security concerns, which relate to falsifications about his illegal drug use and involvement during the security clearance process. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02181.h1


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

06/07/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related criminal conduct. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01128.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

06/07/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement and substance misuse, and personal conduct security concerns, related to his use of marijuana while holding a security clearance, and his failure to fully disclose it on his security clearance application and during an investigative interview. Based on the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01057.h1


Guideline B; Guideline F

06/07/2019

Department Counsel contends that the record in this case does not support the Judge’s favorable Guideline F mitigation and whole-person analysis. He persuasively argues that, even though the Judge discussed many of Applicant’s financial shortcomings, he reached a decision that runs contrary to the weight of the evidence. Favorable decision reversed. CASE NO: 17-03229.a1


Foreign Influence

06/06/2019

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his family connections to Pakistan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02152.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

06/06/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his failures to timely file federal income tax returns and pay the taxes due and his multiple falsifications during the adjudication of his application for a security clearance. CASE NO: 18-02040.h1


Financial

06/06/2019

Applicant owed more than $38,500 in delinquent consumer debts. He settled one small credit card account for 45% of the balance due, but demonstrated insufficient efforts or means to resolve his remaining delinquencies or establish rehabilitation. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. National security eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-01577.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

06/06/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised under Guideline G and Guideline E. He had several alcohol incidents, while holding a security clearance, and failed to notify his security officer. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01435.h1


Financial

06/06/2019

Applicant has a history of financial problems, including more than $400,000 owed in federal and state income taxes. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01133.h1


Financial

06/06/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate his long-standing history of financial problems. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 17-02348.h1


Financial

06/05/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02154.h1


Personal Conduct; Handling Protected Information

06/05/2019

In 2008, Applicant negligently took a classified document home and stored it in a file box in his garage. In 2011, he discovered the document and shredded it. Later in 2011, he disclosed his negligent handling of the classified document. His negligent handling of the classified document is not recent. Guideline K (handling protected information) security concerns are mitigated. However, in 2016, he used countermeasures to attempt to manipulate a counterintelligence polygraph test. Security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01656.h1


Criminal Conduct; Financial; Personal Conduct

06/05/2019

Applicant has been arrested 17 times, mostly for felonies, during a 30-year period from 1986 to 2014, and is currently on probation until 2021. He has five unpaid long-standing debts to include $23,000 owed to the IRS for back taxes. Additionally, Applicant has an extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse that led to several employment terminations, the most recent being in 2015. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00982.h1


Financial

06/04/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02000.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

06/04/2019

Applicant’s brief raises no allegation of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, her brief merely forwards documents that are not in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01967.a1


Financial

06/04/2019

Applicant has numerous delinquent debts that are unpaid and unresolved. She failed to mitigate Guideline F, financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 18-01879.h1


Guideline F

06/04/2019

Applicant does not challenge the Judge’s adverse findings and conclusion regarding the consumer debts, which are sufficient independently to support the unfavorable security clearance decision. Because Applicant has not made an allegation of error regarding the consumer debts, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01764.a1


Financial

06/04/2019

Applicant made significant progress resolving her delinquent debts, and is clearly committed to repaying all of her outstanding accounts. Her finances are under control, and future financial problems are unlikely to recur. Financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00748.h1


Guideline F

06/04/2019

The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00324.a1


Financial

06/04/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by unpaid state tax obligations and other debts. He has not shown progress in resolving his delinquent accounts except for a Federal income tax debt. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03640.h1


Financial

06/04/2019

Applicant mitigated the concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03395.h1


Financial

06/04/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate her history of financial problems. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 17-02013.h1


Financial

06/03/2019

Applicant did not present documentation to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concern stemming from his problematic financial history. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 18-02858.h1


Foreign Influence; Personal Conduct

06/03/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his father’s citizenship and residency in Taiwan and by his opening of shell accounts at the bank and his intentional falsifications in his answers to three questions on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00895.h1


Financial

05/31/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns, resulting from unpaid child support and delinquent debts. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01734.h1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

05/31/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the criminal or personal conduct concerns in this case. The mitigation he provided did not outweigh the seriousness of the crimes committed over a seven year period. He also initially did not disclose the information to an employer or security investigator until confronted. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01699.h1


Financial

05/31/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent taxes and other debts. He has not shown progress in resolving his delinquent accounts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01441.h1


Financial

05/31/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to establish that she has been financially responsible, and that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01354.h2


Drugs

05/30/2019

Applicant used and purchased marijuana on numerous occasions between 2010 and, at least, December 2018. In the interim, while in college, he used or tried other drugs, such as cocaine, hallucinogenic acid and mushrooms, and medications prescribed to other people. He did so knowing such use was illegal. Applicant admitted these facts, but failed to offer any information tending to mitigate the serious drug involvement security concerns raised. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02856.h1


Financial Considerations

05/30/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial concerns by filing for bankruptcy. She is eligible for a position of public trust. CASE NO: 18-02283.h1


Guideline F

05/30/2019

Applicant mitigated his failure to file federal and state tax returns in four years and to pay all of his taxes in 2014. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01660.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

05/30/2019

A Judge is presumed to be unbiased, and a party who asserts otherwise has a heavy burden of persuasion on appeal. We find nothing in the record, particularly in the Judge’s conduct of the hearing and in her written decision, that would likely convince a reasonable person that she lacked the requisite impartiality. Applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s adverse rulings is not sufficient to support a claim of bias. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01564.a1


Financial

05/30/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his $130,000 delinquent debt, the resolution of which had not been documented. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-01371.h1


Financial

05/29/2019

Applicant filed all his federal returns as required, but he did not file his state income tax returns when they were due for tax years 2001 through 2014. He hired H&R Block; and he started to file the returns in 2016, more than two years before the Statement of Reasons was issued. All returns are now filed and all taxes are paid. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02406.h1


Alcohol

05/29/2019

The statement of reasons alleges, and Applicant admits he had eight misdemeanor-level, alcohol-related arrests from 2000 to 2017. He made some positive steps towards rehabilitation; however, security concerns under Guideline G (alcohol consumption) are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01736.h1


Alcohol Consumption; Criminal Conduct

05/29/2019

The statement of reasons alleges, and Applicant admits he had seven misdemeanor-level arrests from 1990 to 2017. Most were related to his consumption of alcohol. He made some positive steps towards rehabilitation; however, security concerns under Guidelines G (alcohol consumption) and J (criminal conduct) are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01644.h1


Foreign Influence

05/29/2019

Applicant has mitigated the concerns related to foreign influence raised by the presence of his family members in Iraq. His request for national security eligibility and a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04065.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

05/29/2019

Because of the national housing crisis and plummeting national economy, Applicant was unable to sell his residence and comply with his new employer’s policy-mandate that he reside fulltime within his designated geographical territory within a certain time period. The result was unemployment. He endured lengthy periods of unemployment, interrupted by relatively brief or seasonal periods of underemployment, largely because he had previously been too successful and was now deemed overqualified – situations that were largely beyond his control. Applicant’s savings were eventually depleted, and $45,544 worth of accounts became delinquent. Other factors exacerbating Applicant’s financial situation were his wife’s failure to properly process the family bills and she withheld significant financial information from him; her injuries from an automobile accident; his work-related injuries; and a hurricane. Applicant acted responsibly by seeking and obtaining even entry-level positions wherever he could find them, and by working with his creditors or collection agents. He entered into repayment arrangements with his mortgage holder, and eventually either eliminated the delinquency or is within a month of doing so. He received Form 1099-Cs for three accounts from one creditor, and the amounts cancelled were added to his income. As for some medical bills, those entities that should have been aware of the accounts – the credit reporting agency, the hospital, the billing department of his medical group, insurance companies, and potential medical providers – all had no relevant information for him. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 17-03903.h1


Financial

05/29/2019

Applicant provided sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate her history of financial problems. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 17-02590.h1


Guideline D; Guideline E; Guideline J

05/29/2019

In administrative proceedings, hearsay is admissible and can constitute substantial evidence. DOHA proceedings are administrative in nature, and they are not conducted with a strict application of evidentiary rules required in criminal cases, although DOHA relies upon the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as a guide in its hearings. Directive ¶ E3.1.19. Public records admissible under FRE 803(8), such as court records and police reports, are presumed to be reliable by virtue of the government agency’s duty for accuracy and the high probability that it has satisfied that duty. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-03603.a1


Foreign Influence

05/28/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02185.h1


Foreign Influence

05/28/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02083.h1


Financial

05/28/2019

Applicant made great progress in repaying delinquent student loans after suffering a prolonged period of unemployment. He has demonstrated rehabilitation and mitigated the financial concerns under Guideline F. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02073.h1


Financial

05/28/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file his 2011 and 2014-2017 Federal income tax returns. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-01581.h1


Psychological; Financial

05/28/2019

Applicant’s most recent psychological evaluation indicated that his present mental status negatively impacts his judgment and trustworthiness. In addition, he did not show diligence, or even a good-faith effort, in the handling of his financial issues. Applicant failed to mitigate the psychological conditions and financial considerations security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01226.h1


Drugs

05/28/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00630.h1


Personal Conduct

05/28/2019

The personal conduct concerns were either not established or Applicant mitigated them. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03898.h2


Financial

05/28/2019

Applicant has a long and inconsistent track record of paying child support. His evidence in mitigation is insufficient to overcome the lingering concerns arising from the guideline for financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-01009.h1


Financial

05/28/2019

While Applicant resolved some of his accounts, his last minute attempts to resolve his state and federal tax debts do not outweigh his history of financial irresponsibility as well as his failure to timely file his federal and state income tax returns from tax years 2012 to 2017. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-00824.h1


Guideline F

05/28/2019

Applicant has not shown that he was denied any procedural due process rights afforded him under the Directive. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-04112.a1


Financial

05/24/2019

Applicant had seven purportedly delinquent accounts, totaling approximately $65,147. He filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on two occasions, and each time, the bankruptcy was dismissed because of Applicant’s failure to furnish the bankruptcy trustee some required documentation related to his federal income tax refunds. Applicant did not attempt to ignore his creditors. Instead, he sought professional legal guidance that resulted in his becoming a victim of consumer fraud. He naively followed the instructions of his attorneys, paying them rather than his creditors. However, now that Applicant has cast aside those law firms, and removed himself from the bankruptcies, he contacted his creditors and started paying them directly. His good-faith efforts have resulted in resolving five of the accounts, and he in the process of resolving the two remaining accounts by remaining in compliance with the repayment arrangements that were established with the creditors. His financial situation is now under control. Under the circumstances, his actions no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-01549.h1


Foreign Influence

05/23/2019

Applicant mitigated security concerns raised by his in-laws who are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02646.h1


Personal Conduct

05/23/2019

Applicant mitigated the potential security concerns raised by her sporadic marijuana use over a five month period in 2015 while holding a security clearance and by her failure to disclose the uses on her security clearance application in 2016. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01095.h1


Guideline H

05/23/2019

Applicant argues that the Judge used his request for a decision on the written record “as a reason to doubt [his] credibility and sincerity.” He contends that the Judge should not have used that request to evaluate his credibility and states that he “was not exempt from having a potential hearing if requested by the [J]udge assigned to the case.” These arguments lack merit. First, the Directive provides that a hearing may be requested by the applicant or by Department Counsel. There is no provision for a Judge to convene a hearing on his own motion. Second, there is no basis for concluding that the Judge used Applicant’s forum choice as a factor in making his credibility determination. In his whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that, because no hearing was held in this case, he “had no opportunity to evaluate [Applicant’s] credibility and sincerity based on demeanor.” We find no error in the Judge’s statement. Third, the Judge also noted that Applicant’s varying positions regarding his future use of marijuana and his admitted falsification of his drug use on his Security Clearance Application. These were matters the Judge could properly consider in making a credibility determination. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02250.a1


Guideline B

05/23/2019

Applicant argues that he has never taken any action that would harm the U.S. and that he has no property or financial interests in Nigeria, etc. However, the Government need not wait until a person has actually engaged in conduct adverse to U.S. interests before it can deny a security clearance. Even those with good security records can encounter circumstances in which they could be subjected to pressure or find themselves in a conflict between their own legitimate interests and the security interests of the U.S. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04278.a1


Guideline F

05/23/2019

Applicant argues the background investigator concluded she was not a threat. In support of her argument, she quotes a sentence from the summary of her background investigation that states, “There is nothing in the subject’s background or lifestyle that could be used against her as potential coercion, pressure, duress or blackmail.” However, that sentence summarizes Applicant’s responses to the interviewer’s questions. It does not constitute the interviewer’s considered opinion as to Applicant’s worthiness for a clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03548.a1


Financial

05/22/2019

Applicant has failed to address his past-due indebtedness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02158.h1


Financial

05/22/2019

Applicant has failed to address any of her past-due indebtedness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02115.h1


Psychological Conditions

05/22/2019

Applicant mitigated psychological conditions security concerns raised by her diagnosis of having histrionic, borderline, and narcissistic personality traits. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01484.h1


Handling Protected Information; Personal Conduct

05/22/2019

The allegations against Applicant were unsubstantiated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01313.h1


Foreign Influence; Personal Conduct

05/22/2019

Applicant’s allegiance to the United States clearly outweighs his connection to his foreign siblings. He did not willfully falsify his e-QIP, and his four years of illegal residency, when he was on a Taliban “hit list,” is outweighed by him presently putting his life at risk serving his country in Afghanistan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00341.h1


Financial

05/21/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file his 2014-2016 state income tax returns, or to document timely resolution of his $28,000 delinquent debt. Eligibility for public trust position denied. CASE NO: 18-02727.h1


Financial

05/21/2019

Applicant provided sufficient information to mitigate the allegations under the under the financial considerations guideline. Eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02377.h1


Financial; Drugs

05/21/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns related to his financial delinquencies. He did mitigate his minor drug use. His request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-02244.h1


Financial

05/20/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his $13,000 delinquent debt, and his unfiled state and Federal income tax returns. None of the debts had been addressed, and he did not document that his state income tax returns had been filed, or that his Federal tax returns, while now filed, had otherwise been resolved. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-02010.h1


Financial

05/20/2019

Applicant substantially mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent debts incurred after his spouse lost her job due to a medical condition, and his failed business. He has made progress in resolving a majority of his delinquent accounts, and should continue to show progress on the remaining accounts. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01880.h1


Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct

05/20/2019

Although the criminal conduct concerns are mitigated by the passage of time, Applicant failed to mitigate the negative whole-person assessment established by his 2013 and 2015 drug-related arrests. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00835.h1


Financial

05/20/2019

Applicant experienced financial difficulties due to circumstances largely beyond his control, but mitigated the concern by acting responsibly. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00222.h1


Guideline B

05/20/2019

Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that the absence of evidence about his younger sibling in Pakistan hinders the application of pertinent mitigating conditions. He argues that he did not provide such information at the hearing because he was trying to minimize his relationship with his sibling in order to reduce foreign influence concerns. In his brief, he relates information that he obtained from his parents about his sibling that is not in the record. Such information constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Based on our review of the record, Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns involving his parents and younger sibling were not mitigated. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04194.a1


Financial

05/17/2019

Applicant has had a long-standing problem with his federal income taxes, having failed to withhold sufficient funds to cover his federal income taxes over a multi-year period, and resulting in two federal tax liens, totaling $42,034, being filed against him in 2009. While there are some very recent post-Statement of Reasons and post-Notice of Hearing payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Applicant contends that the federal tax liens are no longer listed on his credit report, there is no evidence that those federal tax liens have been released. Accordingly, he may still owe the IRS unpaid federal income taxes, interest, and penalties. However, of greater significance is Applicant’s seemingly routine practice of failing to timely file his federal income tax returns. While Applicant offered some explanations for his untimely actions, those explanations do not adequately justify the lengthy delays in completing the required actions. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect sensitive information. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 18-01875.h1


Personal conduct

05/17/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct security concerns due to intentional falsifications on her security clearance application. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01579.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

05/17/2019

Applicant’s brief discusses the impact that an unfavorable decision will have on him. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider such consequences. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00044.a1


Foreign Influence

05/17/2019

Applicant mitigated the concerns raised under foreign influence. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03331.h1


Guideline F

05/15/2019

Applicant failed to file timely her 2008-2009 and 2011-2015 Federal income tax returns and had delinquent Federal taxes totaling over $300,000 for 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01447.a1


Guideline B

05/15/2019

Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1 provides that the Appeal Board shall give deference to a Judge’s credibility determination. From our review of the record and the Judge’s sustainable findings about inconsistent statements, the Judge’s credibility determination is not undermined by sufficient contrary evidence to set aside that deference. To the extent that Applicant is raising an issue of due process, we note there is nothing in the record that would prompt a reasonable person to question Applicant’s ability to understand the proceedings or to represent himself. Moreover, we find nothing in the record that would persuade a reasonable person to conclude the Judge lacked impartially. These is no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded by the Directive. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00852.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

05/15/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations or personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00811.h1


Guideline F

05/14/2019

We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited in support of his arguments, but it is neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01045.a1


Foreign Influence

05/14/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-04099.h1


Foreign Influence

05/13/2019

Applicant’s spouse’s connections to her parents who are citizens and residents of the People’s Republic of China (China) are close and continuing. China aggressively seeks classified and protected information from the United States. Foreign influence security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02960.h1


Guideline F

05/13/2019

Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant has made a prima facie showing that she submitted some evidence that the Judge did not include in the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for a new decision. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 18-01354.a1


Financial

05/13/2019

Applicant provided sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate his history of financial problems, which are now largely resolved. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 17-01599.h1


Foreign Influence

05/10/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from her personal and family connections in Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, and Columbia. Based upon a review of the record as a whole, national security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02252.h1


Financial

05/10/2019

Applicant was unable to mitigate financial considerations concerns pertaining to 11 delinquent debts totaling $39,000. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01374.h1


Personal Conduct

05/10/2019

Applicant has mitigated the personal conduct concerns raised by plagiarism, driving under the influence, and falsifying time cards. CASE NO: 17-03884.h1


Drugs

05/10/2019

Applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate his involvement with marijuana. The most recent incident occurred in January 2017, when he knowingly used marijuana at a New Year’s Day party while holding a security clearance. CASE NO: 17-02225.h1


Foreign Influence

05/10/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the foreign influence security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 16-03770.h1


Financial

05/09/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file his 2012-2017 Federal income tax returns, or to document timely resolution of his $8,900 delinquent debt. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-02471.h1


Guideline F

05/09/2019

The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01837.a1


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct

05/09/2019

Applicant failed to provide corroborating documentation that the state did not possess incriminating against him after his arrest. His acceptance of a pretrial intervention program does not, by itself, support his claim of innocence. His assertion is unpersuasive and unsubstantiated. He failed to mitigate the security concerns in the statement of reasons. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00050.h1


Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct

05/09/2019

Applicant’s statements were not credible or corroborated. His criminal conduct casts doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. He failed to mitigate the security concerns in the statement of reasons. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00042.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

05/09/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the concerns related to his financial delinquencies. He also falsified a government questionnaire concerning his financial situation. His request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is denied. He resolved one account and has been paying on the other. He filed both of his overdue returns, and intends to establish a payment agreement with the IRS and his state if he owes taxes. He has been acting responsibly under the circumstances. His financial problems are being resolved and are under control. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 17-03498.h1


Financial

05/09/2019

Applicant’s financial problems could be attributed, in part, to circumstances beyond his control. He resolved one account and has been paying on the other. He filed both of his overdue returns, and intends to establish a payment agreement with the IRS and his state if he owes taxes. He has been acting responsibly under the circumstances. His financial problems are being resolved and are under control. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 17-03036.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

05/09/2019

The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant did not produce sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns arising from the two state tax liens is sustainable. As the Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for Judge to expect applicants to present documentation showing that debts have been resolved or are being resolved. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-00893.a1


Financial

05/08/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02272.h1


Financial

05/08/2019

Applicant failed to timely file his federal income tax return for the tax year 2012 (as well as for the tax year 2015); failed to pay annual federal income taxes as required for a multi-year period; and currently owes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approximately $51,757 in unpaid federal income taxes, interest, and penalties. Now, he is finally concerned about a security clearance, but he waited six and one-half years after the extended due date for the filing, and over six months after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued, to supposedly file his federal income tax return for the tax year 2012, during the week of the April 2019 hearing. As for the unpaid 2013, 2014, and 2015 income taxes, Applicant waited until October 2018 to establish a working Installment Agreement with the IRS – approximately one month after the SOR was issued – starting $700 monthly withdrawals. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02081.h1


Financial

05/08/2019

Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns for multiple years, accrued sizable delinquent tax debts for the years in issue, and accumulated delinquent medical and consumer debts that have not been favorably resolved. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility to hold a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01870.h1


Guideline E; Guideline G; Guideline J

05/08/2019

Regarding the aggravated assault conviction, Applicant’s Counsel argues that Applicant “was operating in self-defense, but went too far when he pushed [the victim] out of the truck and onto the side of the road[.]” She also argues that Applicant “was coerced into the shooting incident through duress/self-defense.” Her arguments raising criminal defenses (such as self-defense and duress) are not persuasive. Of note, she has not challenged the Judge’s finding that Applicant decided to forego pursing the self-defense claim after consulting with his attorney in the criminal proceeding. While Applicant testified that he shot the victim in self-defense, he also acknowledged that he pled guilty to the aggravated assault offense. The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies in DOHA proceedings. Under that doctrine, Applicant’s Counsel is not permitted to contend that her client did not engage in the criminal acts of which he was convicted. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00857.a1


Financial

05/08/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00246.h1


Guideline F; Guideline G; Guideline H; Guideline I

05/08/2019

In his appeal brief, Applicant describes the Judge’s summary of his clinical history as “detailed and thorough,” although he claims there are a “few errors” in her findings. For example, he challenges the Judge’s statement that he turned down a referral to a “no cost” rehabilitation program in 2016 by arguing he would have been billed for treatment costs not covered by insurance and he would have been responsible for “prohibitive” transportation expenses in getting to and from the distant facility. From our review of the record, we conclude that Applicant has not identified any error that is likely to have affected the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04028.a1


Guideline D; Guideline E

05/08/2019

Applicant’s many years of utilizing prostitutes, incidents that he has not admitted to his wife because he is not sure how she will respond, raise reasonable concerns about his judgment and the extent to which he could be subjected to undue influence or coercion. Of course, the Judge was required to consider Applicant’s character evidence and his explanations for his misconduct. In addition, we give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. However, that deference has its limits. When a Judge fails to address record evidence that is contrary to his favorable credibility determination, it provides a serious reason to believe that he has simply substituted a favorable impression of an applicant’s demeanor for record evidence. In this case, the totality of Applicant’s misconduct–especially his omission of material information during his 2014 polygraph due to concern over its effect on his clearance–persuades us that the Judge’s credibility determination is not entitled to the deference that we normally extend to such conclusions. Favorable decision reversed. CASE NO: 17-02785.a1


Foreign Influence

05/08/2019

A Chinese citizen by birth and a U.S. citizen since 2000, Applicant met her burden to present sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concern for foreign influence based on her family ties to China. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 17-01420.h1


Financial

05/07/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his over $61,000 delinquent child support, which he only began to address when he received the SOR. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-02878.h1


Personal Conduct

05/07/2019

Applicant falsified his April 2017 e-QIP, and was less than candid with the Government investigator during his subsequent June 2018 interview. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02235.h1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

05/07/2019

Applicant’s longstanding service and ties in the United States outweigh security concerns raised by his family members who are citizens and reside in Iraq. Applicant mitigated security concerns raised because he possessed a valid Iraqi passport. Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02191.h1


Financial

05/07/2019

Applicant has addressed all of his past-due indebtedness. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02148.h1


Foreign Influence

05/07/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns generated by his family members who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01607.h1


Financial

05/07/2019

Applicant has failed to address all of his past-due indebtedness, and all of his Federal and state past-due income taxes. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00695.h1


Foreign Influence

05/07/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns generated by his family members who are residents of the West Bank. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-01969.h1


Guideline F

05/06/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, it describes the reasons for his financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. Applicant also indicates that a security clearance is required for his job. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01662.a1


Financial

05/03/2019

Applicant’s present financial situation is not caused by any inability to satisfy his remaining debts, but rather by his refusal to do so. He has two delinquent student-loan accounts, totaling approximately $35,000, placed for collection, and charged off in 2012. Although he has sufficient funds to at least start resolving those debts, because they were charged off, sold to other collection agents or debt purchasers, and the statute of limitations had expired, he contends he is no longer responsible for them, and he has repeatedly stated that he has no intention to pay them off. He has not addressed either debt since 2012. Now finally concerned about a security clearance, Applicant recently stated that if he needed to resolve the debts in order to obtain his security clearance, he would be willing and able to do so. While seemingly willing, to date, Applicant has not done so. Under the evidence presented, there are substantial questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-03000.h1


Drugs

05/03/2019

Applicant used, purchased, and sold marijuana in varying frequency over a number of years and used cocaine on multiple occasions over a considerable period does not mitigate security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02578.h1


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

05/03/2019

Applicant shows no foreign preference based upon his dual citizenship in Saudi Arabia, as he uses it only for traveling to pass easier through customs when he visits his parents. Applicant’s limited, minimal, and casual foreign contact with family members in Saudi Arabia, including his mother, father, five brothers, four sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, cousins and others extended family do not pose a security risk, and have been mitigated by sufficient evidence in mitigation. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02125.h1


Financial

05/03/2019

Between 2012 and 2014, Applicant accumulated two delinquent debts (a state tax lien and charged-off home equity loan) and two foreclosures that resulted in zero balances. While Applicant has resolved his state tax lien and two foreclosures, he has not addressed his home equity loan deficiency. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01601.h1


Alcohol

05/03/2019

Applicant’s history of alcohol involvement includes a June 2015 DUI with a high blood-alcohol content, a 2015 diagnosis of a severe alcohol use disorder, and evidence of continued alcohol consumption. It is Applicant’s burden to mitigate the security concerns established by his actions and his serious alcohol use disorder. He has resumed drinking, despite his diagnosis. He has indicated an intent to resume counseling, as recommended to avoid relapse or alcohol abuse, but has not yet done so. Applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate Guideline G security concerns. Eligibility for continued access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00629.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

05/02/2019

Applicant has refuted the allegations regarding his personal conduct, but he has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02304.h1


Drugs

05/02/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the concerns related to his long-term drug use. His request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04007.h1


Financial

05/01/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations concerns raised by $50,911 in delinquent debt incurred when he and his wife were underemployed between December 2017 and January 2018. Since returning to work, Applicant has paid almost $12,000 toward the resolution of his delinquent accounts. Applicant’s request for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01361.h1


Foreign Influence

05/01/2019

Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Russia, failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by her ongoing contact with family members and friends who are citizens and residents of Russia. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01058.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

05/01/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his history of marijuana use, including after being granted a security clearance and access to sensitive compartmented information in 2011. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00763.h1


Foreign Influence

05/01/2019

Applicant mitigated the concerns raised under foreign influence. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00216.h1


Guideline F

04/30/2019

The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02048.a1


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

04/30/2019

Applicant, a U.S. citizen by birth, chose to become an Israeli citizen at age 39 and lived and worked in Israel in the information technology field for 17 years before returning to the United States. As a result of her employment in Israel, she has a significant retirement account and a bank account in Israel. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01955.h1


Financial

04/30/2019

Applicant failed to responsibly resolve a 2012 Federal tax lien. He did not mitigate the resulting financial security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01788.h1


Guideline F

04/30/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. She states, however, that “decisions . . . can be made other than canceling my clearance.” To the extent she is arguing that an exception under Directive, Encl. 2, App. C should be granted, she has not shown that such an exception is merited. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01240.a1


Financial

04/30/2019

The good judgment Applicant exercised by filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in September 2016 is undermined by the poor judgment he demonstrated by not maintaining the plan payments as ordered by the bankruptcy court. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns based on the guideline for financial considerations. Eligibility for security clearance access is denied. CASE NO: 18-00480.h1


Guideline G

04/30/2019

The Appeal Board has no authority over delays in the processing of a case. The Appeal Board has no supervisory authority over adjudicators or DOHA personnel involved in processing security clearances. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04097.a1


Financial

04/29/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts by demonstrating that one debt was covered by insurance, one was promptly paid once Applicant became aware of it, and the remaining education debts were due to the lender's incorrect action on his accounts, which he was taking reasonable action to address. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 18-02842.h1


Financial

04/29/2019

Applicant accumulated over $97,000 in unresolved delinquent debt after her May 2011 Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-02255.h1


Financial

04/29/2019

Applicant has either satisfied his delinquent debts in their entirety, or is paying them through payment plans. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01352.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

04/26/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts, failure to timely file a federal income tax return, and repeated misuse of a company credit card for personal expenses. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02335.h1


Financial

04/26/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 18-02107.h1


Financial

04/26/2019

Applicant’s financial problems started in 2013 and have continued through today. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged 13 purportedly continuing delinquent debts, including 9 student loans and 4 commercial accounts or credit-card accounts, totaling approximately $52,549. She was unemployed from April 2015 until January 2016 when she was moving with her family overseas, house-hunting, job-hunting, and unpacking. Applicant did not identify any factors that were largely beyond her control that might have resulted in her financial problems. In January 2017 – 18 months before the SOR was issued – she entered into the Treasury Offset Program (TOP) and started having her wages offset, sometimes her entire weekly wage, to the U.S. Department of Education. As of March 2019, her payments towards her delinquent student loans totaled well over $14,000. In addition, she (and her husband) have addressed other delinquent accounts listed in the SOR, and in one case, they resolved an account for which Applicant had no legal responsibility. Under the evidence presented, there are no longer substantial questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect sensitive information. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-02027.h1


Foreign Influence

04/26/2019

Applicant’s longstanding U.S. ties and his strong devotion to the United States mitigate security concerns raised by his familial relations in South Sudan. Foreign influence security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01763.h1


Financial

04/26/2019

Applicant has either satisfied his delinquent debts in their entirety, or is paying them through payment plans. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01717.h1


Personal Conduct; Finances

04/26/2019

Applicant was reprimanded and terminated by his respective employers on multiple occasions for acts of dishonesty and violations of company policies. Personal conduct concerns are not mitigated. Financial concerns over Applicant's delinquent debts, judgments, and federal tax lien have not been addressed by Applicant and remain unresolved and not-mitigated. 000 that he has not resolved to date. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02369.h1


Personal Conduct

04/26/2019

The statement of reasons (SOR) highlights serious offenses that provides insight into Applicant’s character and integrity. Applicant is not remorseful for his pattern of misconduct or history of deceit. His explanations are self-serving and insincere. Applicant has not mitigated security concerns raised by his personal conduct. The resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 15-05443.h1


Foreign Influence

04/25/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the foreign influence concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02641.h1


Guideline F

04/25/2019

The Board has noted that: “Public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the industrial security program depends, to a large degree, on there being both the substance and the appearance of a fair and impartial adjudication after reasonable consideration of the record evidence as a whole. If an Administrative Judge makes statements or acts in a manner that could lead a reasonable person to question whether the Judge considered all the record evidence, then a party could understandably question whether he or she received fair consideration of the evidence it presented.” In this case, the number of errors, some of which are substantial, in the Judge’s decision raises this problem. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 18-01601.a1


Financial

04/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00903.h1


Finances, Personal Conduct

04/25/2019

Applicant acquired multiple delinquent debts and was charged with multiple counts of bad checks. There is no documentary evidence reflecting progress has been made on any of these accounts. Moreover, Applicant admitted she entered false information on multiple security clearance applications between 2008 and 2016, but failed to provide any documentation tending to mitigate relate security concerns. Financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00235.h1


Drugs

04/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns under Guideline H. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-00120.h1


Guideline E; Guideline K; Guideline M

04/25/2019

We give deference to a Judge’s credibility determination. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. The evidence, which includes his prior employer’s written summary of the things that led to his firing, support the challenged finding. Indeed, the number of infractions suggest that they were not merely inadvertent or negligent. We have noted before that multiple false statements support a finding of intentional misbehavior. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02612.a1


Guideline F; Guideline J

04/25/2019

Applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony supports the Judge’s conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02009.a1


Guideline D; Guideline E; Guideline F; Guideline J

04/25/2019

The principle feature of the Judge’s analysis is not that Applicant failed to take action to resolve the student loans, but rather that he failed to take action to resolve them in a timely manner. Access to protected information requires faithful adherence to the rules and regulations governing such activity. A person who begins to address concerns only after having been placed on notice that his or her access is in jeopardy may lack the willingness to follow rules and regulations when his or her personal interests are not at stake. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-03093.a1


Foreign Influence

04/24/2019

Applicant immigrated from Iraq and became a naturalized U.S. citizen with linguist skills in anticipation of being put to use by his employer. He also has family members who are citizens and residents of Iraq and property interests in the country that collectively are not reconcilable with U.S. security interests. Foreign influence concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02063.h1


Guideline F

04/24/2019

In her appeal brief, Applicant asks us to “take another look” at the Judge’s unfavorable findings. The Appeal Board does not conduct de novo reviews. Her brief does not raise any allegations of error on the part of the Judge. While it does contain assertions that are not in the record, including her intended actions regarding the unresolved debts, the Appeal Board is prohibited from receiving or considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01358.a1


Guideline F

04/24/2019

The Judge, as the trier of fact, has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00936.a1


Financial Considerations

04/23/2019

Applicant has had multiple debts, and produced no documentation that the SOR allegations had been paid or otherwise resolved the delinquent debts except for one. She has not received financial counseling. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02689.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

04/23/2019

Applicant is a 37-year-old mechanic, and has served in that position with his current employer since February 2014. Applicant admittedly purchased, possessed, and used marijuana for over two decades; possessed and sold cocaine; violated a foreign country’s Cannabis Control Act and customs law; was arrested and charged with a variety of criminal violations; and lied on his e-QIP when he denied drug involvement and substance misuse during the last seven years when, in fact, he was still using marijuana. Because of his assault and battery charge of a family member in 2016, he is still under advisement, a type of probation, until July 2019, and he has not yet completed the court-mandated requirements. In addition, while the Statement of Reasons did not allege it, Applicant held an interim security clearance at some unspecified point between September 2016 (when he was still using marijuana) and February 2018. Under the evidence presented, there are substantial questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02005.h1


Drugs

04/23/2019

Applicant possessed and used marijuana once in August 2015 and once in August 2017 while holding a security clearance. Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01961.h1


Financial

04/23/2019

Applicant has a history of failing to timely file Federal and state tax returns. He owes a Federal agency a large debt for the overpayment of benefits he received. He did not mitigate the resulting financial security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01804.h1


Financial

04/23/2019

Applicant experienced financial problems due to circumstances beyond her control. She filed for bankruptcy protection and resolved her delinquent debts. She has her finances under control and future financial problems are unlikely to recur. She mitigated Guideline F, financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01487.h1


Foreign Influence; Financial

04/23/2019

Applicant’s mother, two sisters, spouse, and three children are citizens and residents of Afghanistan, and he has frequent contact with them. His finances were harmed by unemployment, gambling, and paying necessary expenses to support his family in Afghanistan. He has several substantial unresolved debts. Foreign influence and financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01135.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

04/23/2019

Applicant has several unresolved debts including delinquent federal income taxes. He did not make sufficient progress resolving his delinquent debts. He refuted the allegation that he failed to disclose his delinquent debts on his May 11, 2016 Questionnaire for National Security Positions or security clearance application. Personal conduct security concerns are refuted; however, financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00816.h1


Financial

04/23/2019

Applicant has several unresolved debts including delinquent federal income taxes and local taxes. She did not make sufficient progress resolving her delinquent debts. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00508.h1


Alcohol

04/23/2019

Applicant had two alcohol-related driving offenses, was impaired by alcohol on duty, and engaged in an alcohol-related disorderly conduct. He was diagnosed as alcohol dependent in 2009 and alcohol-use disorder in 2012. He made some positive steps towards rehabilitation; however, security concerns under Guideline G (alcohol consumption) are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-01289.h1


Financial

04/22/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03839.h1


Financial

04/20/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his history of failing timely to file income tax returns. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 16-02147.h1


Foreign Influence

04/19/2019

Applicant is a 59-year-old linguist with U.S. forces in Iraq, where he is scheduled to remain until the end of 2019. He previously served in the same capacity during a period of increased hostilities and military action, and he contributed to the missions of the United States at personal risk on behalf of U.S. combat forces in Iraq. His past and current honorable service as a linguist weighs heavily towards mitigating the foreign influence security concerns, and increase the probability that Applicant will recognize, resist, and report any attempts by a foreign power, terrorist group, or insurgent group to coerce or exploit him. Furthermore, he is no longer close to his family members who reside in Iraq; he no longer owns a house in Iraq; and he no longer receives his military pension. With his wife and children residing in the United States, there is a reduced “heightened risk” of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. Under the evidence presented, there are no longer questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-02123.h1


Criminal Conduct; Alcohol Consumption; and Personal Conduct

04/19/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct; Guideline G, alcohol consumption; and Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01634.h1


Personal Conduct

04/19/2019

Applicant mitigated the personal conduct security concerns alleged in the Statement of Reasons. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-00430.h1


Financial

04/18/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02176.h1


Financial

04/18/2019

Although most of Applicant's debts had been discharged in her March 2019 discharge, she had not resumed payments on her delinquent education loans, and had not established a track record of living within her means. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-01762.h1


Financial

04/18/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01635.h1


Guideline E; Guideline G

04/18/2019

Applicant contends the Judge “became angered with me and extremely intimidating for not recalling (incorrect count of two DUI’s) and he did not allow me to explain why I felt the information was incorrect.” He further asserts that he felt the Judge “bullied” him into agreeing with a response when he was not comfortable with it. From our review of the record, we conclude there is no basis for Applicant’s assertions. While the Judge interrupted Applicant’s testimony to ask pointed questions, his questioning of Applicant was not inappropriate, and he provided Applicant ample opportunity to explain himself. Furthermore, Applicant was represented at the hearing. At no time during the segment of the hearing in question did Applicant’s counsel object to the Judge’s questions or conduct. Applicant’s assertions are not sufficient to rebut the presumption the Judge was impartial. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-05801.a1


Financial

04/17/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by her $25,000 delinquent debt, and her unfiled 20015-2017 Federal income tax returns, none of which had been addressed. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-02419.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct; Foreign Influence

04/16/2019

Applicant accumulated delinquent consumer debts during recurrent periods of unemployment that he could not address after returning to full-time employment. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Additional concerns over Applicant's two prior employment terminations for cited cause and having family members in a heightened risk country (Afghanistan) are refuted and mitigated, respectively. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02309.h1


Guideline F

04/15/2019

The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01802.a1


Financial

04/15/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations security concern. He has not resolved the bulk of his delinquent debts. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01323.h1


Financial

04/12/2019

Applicant has had a long-standing problem with her finances, stretching back over two decades. As a result, various accounts became delinquent. She had two Chapter 7 bankruptcies (in 1997 and 2007) and now has more delinquent accounts. Her student loans are delinquent and she owes the Internal Revenue Service over $4,000. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Her eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 18-01940.h1


Financial

04/12/2019

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01779.h1


Financial

04/12/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns related to her history of delinquent debts. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information granted. CASE NO: 18-00498.h1


Handling Protected Information; Information Technology; Personal Conduct

04/12/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns stemming from his intentional destruction of a company-owned external hard drive to which he had transferred or moved approximately 1,600 files, which included company propriety information, in advance of beginning another job in the defense industry. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 17-02998.h1


Personal Conduct

04/11/2019

Applicant’s use of his work computer to solicit sex, and his subsequent failure to disclose this episode on his security clearance application as the reason for his subsequent employment termination, generate personal conduct security concerns that he failed to mitigate. CASE NO: 18-01638.h1


Financial

04/11/2019

Applicant made good-faith payments toward his delinquent student loans in accordance with a rehabilitation agreement. He has made sufficient progress and mitigated Guideline F, financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01356.h1


Financial

04/11/2019

Given the nature and seriousness of Applicant’s failure to timely file Federal and state income tax returns for three consecutive years, his significant outstanding state tax liens and debt with multiple creditors, and the length of time they have been unresolved, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01330.h1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct; Financial

04/11/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the criminal conduct, personal conduct, and financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 16-02181.h1


Foreign Influence; Criminal

04/10/2019

Applicant’s mother lives in the United States and his sister lives in Canada. Their presence here and in Canada pose little threat to national security. Applicant’s two incidents of domestic dispute occurred more than 12 years ago as a newlywed. As his spouse attests, they have since been happily married. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01655.h1


Financial

04/10/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his delinquent filings of his Federal and state tax returns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 15-05820.h1


Foreign Influence, Financial

04/09/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence, and Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02548.h1


Guideline F

04/09/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it does contain a document that is not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant presented no documentary proof of participating in a repayment plan. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for Judges to expect applicants to present documentation that shows their efforts to resolve financial problems. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01094.a1


Guideline H

04/09/2019

The Judge did not consider evidence because it was not sent through department counsel as a formal post-hearing document, so it was not considered in his decision. Department Counsel concurs with Applicant’s request to remand the case to the Judge for consideration of the documents in question. Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the Judge for consideration of those documents and further processing of the case consistent with the Directive. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 17-04287.a1


Financial

04/09/2019

After a Chapter 7 discharge in 2001 and a Chapter 13 discharge in 2010, Applicant accumulated 21 additional debts between 2010 and November 2017. Financial considerations have not been mitigated. Eligibility for security clearance access is denied. CASE NO: 17-02909.h1


Financial

04/08/2019

Applicant accumulated delinquent debts following his 2010 Chapter 7 discharge, which he attributed in part to a brief period of unemployment. Since the fresh start he received from his bankruptcy discharge, he has not addressed any of his debt delinquencies. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02236.h1


Alcohol

04/08/2019

Since 2012, Applicant has been arrested three times for driving under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, he did not comply with the terms of his probation by consuming alcohol and failing to complete court-ordered alcohol counseling. He did not present sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns about his alcohol consumption. His request for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01470.h1


Financial

04/08/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03081.h1


Guideline F

04/05/2019

In the appeal brief, Department Counsel challenges the Judge’s findings that Applicant made a claim of identity theft regarding a non-tax debt and that he disputed the three non-tax debts. Specifically, Department Counsel contends the record does not contain evidence supporting those findings. We disagree. Applicant’s response to the SOR and AE A and B support the Judge’s challenged findings. Favorable decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01751.a1


Outside Activities; Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

04/05/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his business interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), his possession of a UAE identification documents, and his bank account in the UAE. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00791.h1


Guideline F

04/05/2019

Applicant’s argument that the law is complex and therefore capable of being misunderstood is not a reason to excuse a multi-year failure to have complied with Federal and state tax laws, especially in light of his 2012 realization that his late filings could imperil his clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00635.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

04/05/2019

Applicant’s failure to file income tax returns could be attributed, in part, to circumstances beyond his control. He filed all of his overdue returns, paid all federal taxes owed, and is complying with his state’s tax payment agreement. He has been acting responsibly under the circumstances. His financial problems are being resolved and are under control. The omissions in his 2015 security clearance application were not deliberate. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 17-01294.h1


Guideline F

04/05/2019

In his brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s rulings or findings of fact. Instead, he contends the Judge misapplied the whole-person concept. In doing so, he cites his military service and performance as a defense contractor. He also discusses his financial problems and his efforts to resolve them. He argues that his financial problems amount to an isolated incident and do not reflect him as a whole person. His arguments, in essence, are a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. As we stated in the past, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. The Judge, as the trier of fact, has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-00795.a1


Guideline F

04/05/2019

Many of Applicant’s arguments constitute a challenge to the manner in which the Judge weighed the evidence. However, an ability to argue for an alternative interpretation of the record is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Neither has Applicant provided a reason to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-03696.a1


Drugs

04/04/2019

Applicant has illegally used marijuana with varying frequency since 2010. He intends to continue using it. He did not mitigate the resulting security concerns. Based upon a review of the record as a whole, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02057.h1


Guideline G

04/04/2019

The Judge’s decision was based on the FORM and Applicant’s response to it. After having admitted the SOR allegations, the burden was on Applicant to mitigate those security concerns. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. If she wanted the Judge to consider matters that were not in the FORM, it was her responsibility to present such matters to him. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01325.a1


Foreign Influence

04/04/2019

Applicant wants to resume linguist duties in a conflict area outside of the United States. His half brother lives in Somalia, and his sister lives in Kenya. His contacts with them are limited, and he has strong connections to the United States. He mitigated foreign influence security concerns relating to his connections to Somalia and Kenya. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00764.h1


Foreign Influence

04/04/2019

After the statement of reasons was issued, Applicant’s spouse moved from Iraq to the United States, and she is now a U.S. permanent resident. He mitigated foreign influence security concerns relating to his connections to Iraq. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00543.h1


Guideline F

04/04/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief does not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. She also argues that, since obtaining her current job, she has become financially secure and continues to make every effort to resolve her debts and tax filings, but she has failed to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00360.a1


Guideline F

04/04/2019

Applicant notes that the largest debt was reported by only one credit reporting agency on one credit report in the record. He argues that it was reported on that credit report through an error that has now been corrected. It is well settled, however, that adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and the Government’s obligations under Directive ¶ E3.1.14 for pertinent allegations. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00096.a1


Financial

04/04/2019

Applicant has mitigated the concerns related to his financial delinquencies. His request for national security eligibility and a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03220.h1


Financial

04/04/2019

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Appeal Board remanded the decision for inclusion of four documents in the record. The requested documents are provided. The decision denying Appellant’s access to classified information remains in effect, subject to the decision of the DOHA Appeal Board. CASE NO: 17-03043.h2


Foreign Influence; Personal Conduct

04/04/2019

Applicant’s spouse is a citizen and resident of Pakistan, and he has frequent contact with her. Applicant is unable to meet her in Pakistan because he is worried about his personal safety. She has never been to the United States. Applicant failed to disclose his marriage to the Pakistani citizen during his September 30, 2013 counterintelligence interview. Foreign influence and personal conduct security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-01985.h1


Financial

04/03/2019

Applicant started addressing his financial problems before the Statement of Reasons was issued. His current finances are in order. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02064.h1


Guideline F

04/03/2019

In his 2017 security clearance application (SCA), Applicant disclosed that he was arrested for misapplying entrusted Federal property in 2015. The following year he pled guilty to that misdemeanor offense and paid a fine. He admitted that, while employed as a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, he improperly dumped flyers and newsletters in a dumpster. He resigned from that job under adverse circumstances. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01480.a1


Guideline F

04/03/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents and assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00287.a1


Personal Conduct

04/03/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-01859.h1


Guideline F

04/03/2019

In her appeal brief, Applicant states the Judge agreed to a proposed repayment plan at the hearing and notes that payments toward certain debts under that plan would start in May 2019. The transcript does not support her contention that the Judge agreed to such a proposed plan. Moreover, DOHA is not a debt collection agency, and DOHA Judges have no authority to approve an applicant’s debt repayment plan. In this case, the Judge correctly stated in his analysis that intentions to pay debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of debt repayment or other responsible approaches. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-00729.a1


Financial

04/02/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02787.h1


Financial

04/02/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his $66,000 delinquent debt, none of which had been addressed. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-01978.h1


Foreign Influence

04/02/2019

Applicant worked under dangerous conditions as a linguist for the U.S. military in Iraq. He mitigated security concerns raised by his family members who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01498.h1


Guideline F

04/02/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge, but it does contain a number of documents and assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00249.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

04/02/2019

Applicant has accumulated over $51,000 in student loan and medical debt since 2010. His evidence of mitigation is insufficient to remove the lingering security concerns raised by the guidelines for financial considerations and personal conduct. Eligibility for security clearance access is denied. CASE NO: 17-04063.h1


Financial

04/02/2019

After a hearing and in a Decision dated September 26, 2018, I found in favor of Applicant and granted him access to classified information (Decision). The Government appealed that Decision, and based upon the Appeal Board’s December 18, 2018 Decision and on remand, I find against Applicant. CASE NO: 17-03462.h2


Guideline E; Guideline F

04/02/2019

The Judge did not err in concluding that Applicant’s ongoing tax debts raise concerns that he may be lacking in qualities expected of those with access to classified information. Indeed, the Directive presumes that there is a nexus between admitted or proved conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance. Substantial tax obligations that have remained unresolved over several years, despite an apparent ability to have addressed them, are sufficient to uphold the Judge’s conclusion under Disqualifying Condition 19(f). Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03205.a1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

04/02/2019

Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s intent to deny his eligibility for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense of pointing a weapon at others. He has mitigated the criminal conduct and personal conduct security concerns from this single event. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-00191.h1


Guideline I

04/02/2019

Applicant’s case involves not just “mental health counseling” but also includes a mental health diagnosis that he has a condition that impacts his ability, reliability, judgment, stability, and trustworthiness. The Judge did not err in his application of the Guideline I disqualifying conditions. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-02352.a1


Guideline F

04/01/2019

In 2017, Applicant disclosed that his failure to pay Federal income taxes resulted in a tax lien of approximately $20,000 in 2005. The tax lien was released when he initiated a repayment plan with the IRS. Later, Applicant stated he had been “negotiating repayment plans with, and making payments for unpaid taxes, to the IRS for approximately 15 years.” He believed his Federal tax liens were for his 2008-2010 taxes. He confirmed a 2007 Federal tax lien for about $23,000 and a 2011 Federal tax lien for about $49,000. He claims the latter lien was satisfied, but provided no documentary evidence. As of August 2018, Applicant’s tax transcripts for 2009 and 2010 reflected his total indebtedness was $22,053. His adjusted gross income for 2009 and 2010 was about $234,000 and $263,000, respectively. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01434.a1


Personal Conduct, Financial

04/01/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, and Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00648.h1


Guideline F

04/01/2019

The Judge cited to Applicant’s earlier Response to the FORM in support of his findings about this debt. Applicant contends that the Judge’s citation to the Response was an error because the Response was never admitted into evidence. We find this argument to be persuasive. At the hearing, Department Counsel offered Applicant’s security clearance application, interview summary, and credit reports, which the Judge admitted. Applicant offered two letters, which the Judge admitted. Neither party offered the Response, although it is located in the case file. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 17-03627.a1


Guideline F; Guideline G; Guideline J

04/01/2019

Applicant was arrested twice for firing a weapon after consuming alcohol. He entered a VA substance abuse program the day before the hearing. He has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a pattern of abstinence to overcome his alcohol problems. His criminal conduct did not happen under unusual circumstances and the last offense happened only three years ago. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-08463.a1


Alcohol Consumption

03/29/2019

Applicant was involved in four alcohol-related incidents between 1984 and 1994 and was referred to alcohol evaluation and treatment following a severe fall in 2016. Evaluations by licensed mental health providers confirmed that Applicant suffered from alcohol use disorder. His evaluators, in turn, recommended abstinence, which Applicant has not accepted to date. Alcohol consumption concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility to hold a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02745.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

03/29/2019

Applicant admittedly purchased, possessed and used (or misused) cannabis marijuana; opioids, including Oxycodone and codeine cough syrup; hallucinogens, including LSD and psilocybin mushrooms; stimulants, including cocaine, Adderall®, MDMA, Xanax; and Klonopin. Before he left substance abuse treatment for a drug overdose, against medical advice and without prescribed medication, he was diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder – Severe. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02397.h1


Financial

03/29/2019

Applicant accumulated 39 delinquent debts over a number of years, attributable in part to hospitalization of her son and unemployment of herself and her husband, that she has been unable to address with her available income. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility to hold a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02341.h1


Alcohol consumption; Criminal Conduct

03/29/2019

Applicant was arrested and charged with two alcohol-related incidents between 2011 and 2016. Since his last incident, he seldom drinks and has a strong family network to ensure he avoids any alcohol-related incidents in the future. Alcohol consumption and criminal conduct concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02322.h1


Financial

03/29/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02302.h1


Financial

03/29/2019

Applicant let his finances and taxes languish while he and his wife cared for their daughter, who has had significant medical problems since birth. All returns are now filed, and he is in compliance with an installment agreement with the IRS to pay the remaining back taxes. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02119.h1


Drugs

03/29/2019

Applicant used marijuana from approximately July 2000 to at least February 2018. He denies any intention to use marijuana in the future, although as recently as December 2017, he was unable to commit to abstention. More time is needed for Applicant to establish that his drug involvement and substance misuse will not reoccur. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01697.h1


Financial

03/29/2019

Applicant’s financial difficulties are due to circumstances largely beyond her control (e.g., serious health problems, a separation eventually resulting in a divorce, unemployment, and underemployment). She has acted responsibly under quite trying circumstances and will address the unresolved delinquent debts as her financial situation continues to stabilize. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 18-01641.h1


Financial

03/29/2019

Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security concerns in this case. She had several circumstances that were beyond her control. She has addressed and is resolving the delinquent accounts. Eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01219.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

03/29/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns posed by his history of marijuana use and his falsification of his security clearance application. Eligibility to continue working in a public trust position is denied. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00188.h1


Foreign Influence

03/29/2019

Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his relationship with his parents and his younger brother all of whom are dual citizens of the United States and Pakistan, and his brother resides in that country. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04194.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

03/29/2019

Applicant did not mitigate security concerns raised under drug involvement and personal conduct. While she made great progress dealing with her past history of drug dependence, security concerns remain because she illegally used marijuana on two occasions after being granted an interim security clearance. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03777.h1


Foreign Influence

03/29/2019

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). Applicant has family members who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Applicant has mitigated foreign influence security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03656.h1


Personal Conduct; Financial

03/29/2019

Applicant has paid or is paying his delinquent student loans and they are current. However his misconduct in the military, resulting in a bad conduct discharge; his numerous lies concerning his contact with a female foreign national from Taiwan; and his deliberate falsification on his security clearance application regarding his finances, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence in mitigation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02520.h1


Financial

03/29/2019

Applicant accumulated delinquent consumer debts during recurrent periods of unemployment and underemployment while a full-time student with highly leveraged real estate investments that she could not manage responsibly with her educational commitments and limited income. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00442.h1


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct

03/29/2019

Applicant was investigated after his credit card was linked to known websites linked to child pornography. During searches, classified documentation and images of child pornography were identified. Applicant was reprimanded by the U.S. military for both types of violations. Applicant offered multiple reasons as to how the military’s determinations were incorrect, but offered little documentary evidence persuasively mitigating the security concerns at issue here. Applicant failed to mitigate sexual behavior and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-01680.h1


Personal Conduct

03/28/2019

Applicant intentionally provided false information about the extent of his illegal drug use on Questionnaires for National Security Positions submitted in 2009, 2014, and 2015. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00864.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/28/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations or personal conduct security concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00562.h1


Foreign Influence

03/28/2019

Applicant’s 70-year-old father moved back to his native Philippines to care for his parents, then decided to spend most of the year there in retirement. He inherited his parents’ home, bought a condominium, and purchased a second unit for when he was ready to downsize. He asked Applicant to exercise his dual citizenship status so he could be named as a co-owner in order to facilitate inheritance when his father passed. He also put his name on some bank accounts the father maintained in the Philippines. Applicant has no interest in the properties and is prepared to sell them on distribution. He has considerably more financial holdings in the United States, plus a family that is highly active within their community and church. I find that Foreign Influence security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04141.h1


Alcohol, Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct

03/28/2019

Applicant was cited for driving while intoxicated while in the military in 2004. He was cited for drinking and driving in 2016. He now comports his behavior appropriately and will not drive if he has been drinking. While disciplining an ill-behaved stepson, Applicant got into a wrestling match with him. He was charged with simple assault. Not wishing to escalate friction within the house, Applicant pled guilty. He has since received counseling and has less contact with the teen due to Applicant’s separation from his wife. Much of Applicant’s troubles came from idleness. He is now busy getting to know his long-lost parents and siblings. I find Applicant mitigated alcohol consumption, criminal conduct, and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03651.h1


Finances

03/28/2019

Applicant acquired about $10,000 in delinquent debt due to his expenses exceeding his income. Due to procrastination and a lack of understanding of avenues open to him, many debts became delinquent. He has paid about $1,400 of over $10,000 in debts. His documentary evidence regarding efforts to address other debts was deficient. In light of the facts available in this case, I find Applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03643.h1


Drug Involvement

03/27/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his use of marijuana four times between October 2016 and January 2018 by demonstrating the infrequency of his use, and by executing the statement of intent contemplated by the Directive. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 18-02202.h1


Psychological Conditions

03/27/2019

Applicant was evaluated by a duly-qualified clinical psychologist in February 2018 and found to have a poor prognosis for her mental-health stability because of her chronic borderline personality disorder and minimization of her need for ongoing psychotherapy treatment. She exhibited adequate judgment and insight during a brief assessment for medication management with her treating psychiatrist in January 2019, but it was not established that her condition no longer presents a security risk. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01755.h1


Foreign Influence; Outside Activities

03/27/2019

Applicant worked for a foreign company based in Saudi Arabia who was aligned with a member of the Royal Family for a number of years and is exposed to potential conflicts of interest because his Saudi business relationships. Applicant's demonstrated loyalties and dedicated commitments to protecting U.S. security interests outweigh any potential conflicts he could confront while holding a security clearance. Foreign influence and outside activities concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00266.h1


Financial

03/27/2019

Applicant incurred delinquent debt during a prolonged separation from his ex-wife, and a period of unemployment after he separated from the military. Since returning to work in June 2017, Applicant has resolved $12,000 in delinquent accounts, establishing a record of debt repayment. Applicant’s access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-04051.h1


Financial

03/27/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03962.h1


Financial

03/27/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by her unwillingness to repay a debt to a former employer incurred under unfavorable circumstances. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03912.h1


Foreign Influence

03/27/2019

Applicant left Tunisia to start a new life in the United States in 1999. Since then, he has earned a master’s degree, married, started a family, and become a part of his community. He purposefully cut off contact with his siblings in Tunisia in order to minimize security concerns, but still has occasional telephonic contact with his aged mother who has on-going cancer issues. He considers the U.S. to be his home, and his wife and child here to be his immediate family. I find that he can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the United States. Foreign Influence security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03257.h1


Financial

03/27/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns stemming from his delinquent state taxes, his failure to timely file state and federal tax returns, and his delinquent debts. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 17-01536.h1


Psychological Conditions

03/26/2019

Applicant’s mental health problems have been ongoing for several years, and a recent evaluation indicated that without treatment, her prognosis is poor. She has not seen a mental health practitioner nor taken prescribed medications since late 2008. Applicant has not mitigated the psychological conditions security concerns. National trustworthiness eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02097.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

03/26/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement and substance misuse, and personal conduct security concerns, related to his use of marijuana while holding a security clearance, and his failure to disclose it on his security clearance application. Based on the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01815.h1


Guideline E; Guideline H; Guideline J

03/26/2019

In the case before us, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion is sustainable. An applicant who uses marijuana after having been placed on notice of its security significance, such as using after having completed a clearance application, may be lacking in the qualities expected of those with access to national secrets. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03191.a1


Foreign Influence

03/25/2019

Applicant’s relationship with his foreign family members who are citizens and residents of Iraq, including his mother, father, five brothers, and a sister, pose a significant security risk to the U.S. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02207.h1


Financial

03/25/2019

Applicant’s excessive indebtedness has been resolved, and/or is currently being paid according to the stipulations of the creditor. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01816.h1


Personal Conduct

03/25/2019

Applicant falsified his security application and ensuing personal subject interview by omitting his termination for cause by his prior employer, and by understating the extent of his marijuana use. Applicant failed to make prompt, good-faith corrections of his omissions and understatements when afforded opportunities to do so in his ensuing personal subject interview. Personal conduct concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01630.h1


Financial

03/25/2019

Applicant’s excessive indebtedness has been resolved, and/or is currently being paid according to the creditors’ stipulations. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00095.h1


Finances

03/25/2019

Applicant has made notable headway in addressing numerous delinquent debts and liens over the past few years. With over $40,000 in delinquent debt yet unaddressed, however, Applicant failed to describe any coherent or consistent strategy for addressing the balance. Moreover, the IRS deemed her presently incapable making repayments on her Federal tax liens. As such, Applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00025.h1


Drugs, Financial, Personal Conduct

03/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the potential security concerns raised by his 2012 one-time illegal drug use, his 2014 positive drug test, and his failure to timely file and pay his 2010 state taxes. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02653.h1


Financial

03/22/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concern. He provided no evidence that he has resolved or settled any of his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02476.h1


Foreign Influence

03/22/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns under Guideline B. Eligibility is granted. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02151.h1


Drugs, Criminal Conduct

03/22/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his past drug abuse and related criminal activities. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02091.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

03/22/2019

Applicant demonstrated exceedingly poor judgment by using marijuana while holding a security clearance; however, he is unlikely to repeat his past misconduct. Additionally, the information he presented about his current judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness was sufficient to mitigate the security concerns about his personal conduct. His request for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01483.h1


CAC

03/22/2019

Applicant has worked for her current employer, a Defense contractor, since 2017. Before taking this job, she worked in the private sector from 1999 to 2017, when she was fired for misconduct. Applicant was fired because she disclosed to a family member information that Federal law requires be kept confidential. Later, when completing a Form 306, she failed to disclose her job termination. Applicant admitted this failure but attributed it to having paid insufficient attention to the question at hand because she was focused on other portions of the form. The Judge found this explanation to be implausible. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00524.a1


Foreign Influence

03/22/2019

An Iranian citizen by birth and a U.S. citizen since 2008, Applicant met his burden to present sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concern for foreign influence due to his minimal ties to Iran. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 17-01872.h1


Guideline H

03/22/2019

Applicant’s brief alludes to the time that it has taken to adjudicate his SCA. We do not have authority to comment on the manner in which officials conduct clearance investigations. He draws our attention to various pieces of record evidence that support his effort to obtain a favorable decision, for example documents substantiating his medical problems, his statement of intent not to misuse drugs in the future, his explanations for his security-significant conduct, etc. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant requests that he be granted a clearance accompanied by a warning against future misconduct. However, this is appropriate only when an applicant’s circumstances are not serious enough to warrant an adverse decision. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(h). Given the nature and extent of Applicant’s misconduct, neither the Judge nor other officials erred by failing to apply this procedure. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-01661.a1


Psychological Conditions

03/22/2019

Applicant has been diagnosed on multiple occasions with Bi-Polar Disorder with guarded prognoses dependent on his compliance with his prescribed medication regimens. Over the course of the past ten years, he has been inconsistent with staying on his medications, and at this time, safe predictive assessments cannot be made about his prospects for avoiding recurrent Bi-Polar symptoms that can adversely affect his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Psychological conditions concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 12-02471.h1


Guideline F

03/21/2019

Given Applicant’s inconsistent statements, it was not unreasonable for the Judge to expect Applicant to provide corroboration to support her other claims. He apparently did not find her uncorroborated assertions sufficiently credible to establish those claims, and we are required to give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04166.a1


Finances

03/21/2019

Applicant has been working abroad on government contracts for many years. Between 2013 and 2016, debts mounted up and went unpaid, mostly due to the lack of oversight by family members here in the United States. By 2017, Applicant took over full management and responsibility for these debts and rectified problems with her state taxes, representing a minority of the debts at issue. However, there is scant documentary evidence showing successful implementation of efforts to address the remaining credit and medical debts at issue. Financial considerations security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02159.h1


Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference

03/20/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence and foreign preference security concerns alleged in the Statement of Reasons. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-02121.h1


Financial

03/20/2019

Applicant’s financial problems resulted from her divorce from an abusive ex-husband. She is addressing those problems through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02069.h1


Foreign Influence; Financial

03/20/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his family connections to Lebanon and his delinquent debts. CASE NO: 18-01818.h1


Guideline B; Guideline D; Guideline E

03/20/2019

In 2004, Applicant engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute twice while on a business trip to a foreign country. He again hired prostitutes in another foreign country in 2014 and 2016. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00944.a1


Guideline F

03/20/2019

The Judge stated that Applicant’s tax problem precedes his wife’s job loss and the deaths of his relatives. He found that Applicant still owes over $116,000 and that there is insufficient evidence that his problems are behind him or that he has acted responsibly in regard to his tax lien. He found that Applicant’s tax problem is recent and ongoing. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00221.a1


Financial; Foreign Influence

03/20/2019

Applicant used student loans to finance his college degree. He also has some delinquent consumer debt. Applicant presented sufficient information to establish that the student loans are being paid under a payment plan, and the consumer debts are either paid or the creditors cannot be identified. Financial security concerns are mitigated. Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate foreign influence security concerns based on his wife and stepson who are citizens of the Philippines, and his wife’s parents who are citizens and residents of the Philippines. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-04262.h1


Financial

03/20/2019

Applicant failed to timely file her federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2015. Her recent income tax return filings are insufficient to establish a track record of financial responsibility. She failed to demonstrate good judgment, reliability, and willingness to comply with the law. The financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03500.h1


Financial

03/19/2019

Applicant has addressed all of his past-due indebtedness, and state sales tax liens. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02388.h1


Alcohol

03/19/2019

Applicant has only seven months of sobriety after more than a decade of abuse, two alcohol abuse diagnoses, and continued drinking despite professional advice to abstain. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01759.h1


Foreign Influence

03/19/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under the foreign influence guideline. Eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01363.h1


Financial

03/19/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns related to unpaid delinquent debts. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01360.h1


Financial

03/19/2019

Applicant experienced financial difficulties due to circumstances largely beyond her control, but mitigated the concern by acting responsibly. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02567.h1


Financial

03/19/2019

Due to circumstances largely beyond his control, Applicant incurred significant delinquent debt which had a severe impact on his overall ability to maintain his finances, and resulted in several arrests for issuing worthless checks. However, Applicant did not intentionally issue worthless checks and repaid the amounts owed, and otherwise mitigated the financial concern by acting responsibly under the circumstances. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-01783.h1


Guideline F

03/19/2019

Applicant attributed his financial problems to his having lived beyond his means and to his unemployment. His irresponsible spending led to judgments being levied against him. The Judge concluded that the receipt of the SOR precipitated Applicant’s bankruptcy filing. Applicant provided no current budget. He has no track record of payment on the student loans, nor did he submit character references, his work record, or evidence of community involvement. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-00291.a1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

03/18/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02062.h1


Alcohol

03/18/2019

Applicant has a history of consuming alcohol to excess, which has resulted in the poor exercise of judgment and three alcohol-related criminal incidents. Concerns about his alcohol consumption and alcohol-related arrests were not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01886.h1


Financial

03/18/2019

Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns about her unpaid taxes and other financial problems. Her request for continued security clearance eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-01528.h1


Financial

03/18/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00614.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

03/18/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline H, drug abuse and substance misuse. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance granted. CASE NO: 18-00393.h1


Financial

03/18/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate her history of financial problems and delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00324.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse, Alcohol Consumption, Personal Conduct

03/18/2019

Applicant admittedly purchased, possessed and used marijuana, both before and after he was granted a security clearance; he possessed Adderall® and Suboxone without a prescription; he ignored his responsibilities regarding drugs and alcohol under a collective bargaining agreement and was terminated from employment after he tested positive for marijuana during two random urinalyses and breathalyzer tests conducted by his employer; he was arrested and charged with of possession drugs, including marijuana, Adderall® and Suboxone; possession of paraphernalia; and open container. He initially lied about the true extent of his substance abuse because he feared losing his job or his security clearance, but he told an investigator that he did not plan on stopping his usage of marijuana. Applicant did not alter his declared intent until after he received the SOR. He consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication approximately three times per year, and he consumed beer before going to work on various occasions. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04304.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F; Guideline H

03/18/2019

We have never drawn a bright-line rule as to the recency of misconduct. The extent to which security concerns have become mitigated through the passage of time is a question that must be resolved based on the evidence as a whole. The Judge found, and the record demonstrates, that Applicant’s misconduct goes back many years, resulting in discharge from the military and multiple job terminations. Accordingly, we cannot say that the Judge erred by concluding that Applicant’s few months of good behavior are insufficient to show permanent behavioral changes. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04070.a1


Financial

03/15/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns alleged in the SOR including failure to pay federal income taxes. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02248.h1


Financial Considerations and Foreign Influence

03/15/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations and foreign influence security concerns. Access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01873.h1


Financial

03/15/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01837.h1


Financial

03/15/2019

Applicant filed multiple Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions over a 20-year period (two discharged, one dismissed, and another pending), in addition to accumulating recent debt delinquencies that have not been resolved. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01692.h1


Finances, Personal Conduct

03/15/2019

Applicant has acquired nearly $34,000 in delinquent debts, over half of which is for student loans. No documentary evidence was offered showing any progress on these debts, but Applicant testified that he hoped to refinance his home in order to satisfy these accounts. No evidence of this effort was provided. Applicant also testified that he intentionally provided a false answer on his security clearance application concerning his finances. In light of the above, financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01232.h1


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

03/15/2019

In college, Applicant was arrested for charges related to marijuana and drinking while driving. His marijuana use ended during that timeframe. He was cited for driving under the influence (DUI), however, while battling depression related to the recent deaths of both his infant child and his mother in 2010. On his own volition, he sought treatment and attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), but found the program and his AA site lacking. After cautiously spending the night at a friend’s after consuming alcohol in 2016, Applicant misjudged his condition and drove home while still under the influence. Taking full responsibility for his poor assessment, Applicant aggressively found superior treatment, both in- and out-patient, and found AA sites where he could best benefit from its tenets. He has transitioned from monitored imbibing to sobriety, continues to attend AA three or more times a week, has flourished at work, become a true family man, and is awaiting the birth of another child. I find Applicant mitigated alcohol consumption and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01129.h1


Financial

03/15/2019

Applicant demonstrated that circumstances beyond her control contributed to or aggravated her financial problems. She should have been more diligent addressing her delinquent accounts. Notwithstanding, she recently paid off six of her delinquent accounts and filed for bankruptcy protection to resolve the remaining debts. Her financial problems are being resolved and are under control. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 18-01111.h1


Financial

03/15/2019

Applicant failed to file annual state and federal income tax returns on time, as required, from tax years 2011-2016. He also has ongoing federal income tax debt. He did not mitigate the resulting financial security concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00672.h1


Guideline F

03/15/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief contains a document and assertions that are not included in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00330.a1


Guideline F

03/15/2019

In 2016, Applicant stopped making the payments on two mortgages. She then proceeded to purchase a second home for $250,000, acquired about $38,000 in credit card debt for repairs to the new home, and purchased a used luxury car for about $18,000. She claimed she thought her cousin was making the mortgage payments, although she acknowledged her cousin never contributed before and had no plan to pay them. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03971.a1


Drugs

03/15/2019

Applicant illegally possessed and used marijuana between 2002 and February 2017. He used marijuana after submitting an application for a position of trust in 2013, serving in positions of trust in 2013 and 2015, participating in a drug screening test while in-processing for a position of trust in 2015, and after he was warned by a relative about the possible consequences of his illegal marijuana use. The passage of time so far is insufficient to demonstrate his reliability, trustworthiness, ability to comply with the law, rules and regulations, and his ability to protect classified information. Drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns are not mitigated. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 17-03746.h1


Finances

03/15/2019

Applicant acquired almost $90,000 in delinquent debt when her husband, who has experienced periods of unemployment from his jobs earning between $40,000-$55,000, ceased contributing to the family coffers. As a result, Applicant was forced to manage the household solely on her income of about $135,000. She admits she waited too long to seek bankruptcy protection, but did so the month before the hearing. Lack of evidence of progress of payments toward the incorporated debt, however, undermines her efforts to show a meaningful track record toward debt repayment. Applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03548.h1


Finances, Personal Conduct

03/15/2019

Applicant had significant student loans that were in default, rehabilitation, consolidation, and now in timely repayment. Six instances of alleged falsifications concerning his departure from one job, college graduate dates, course of study enrollments, and falsified academic documents were reviewed. While two of those falsifications could have been the result of confusion, the rest seems to have been designed to conceal facts less favorable to Applicant. In light of the above, financial considerations security concerns are mitigated, but personal conduct security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-00726.h1


Drugs

03/14/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his marijuana use. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02250.h1


Financial; Personal Concuct

03/14/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his falsification of his clearance application, and the over $31,000 delinquent debts he failed to disclose none of which had been resolved. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-02124.h1


Financial

03/14/2019

Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns about her financial problems and unpaid debts. Her request for continued security clearance eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-01765.h1


Financial

03/14/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01677.h1


Foreign Influence; Personal Conduct

03/14/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline B, foreign influence. He has numerous on-going contacts with citizens and/or residents of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. Additionally, his extramarital affair with a foreign national created an unmitigated heightened risk for exploitation. He successfully mitigated the Guideline E, personal conduct security concern. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01473.h1


Financial

03/14/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his significant delinquent debts. Access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01105.h1


Financial

03/14/2019

Applicant incurred delinquent debts while he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, because his ex-wife abused the power of attorney he gave her before he deployed. In their ensuing divorce, Applicant was assigned most of their marital debt. Applicant has repaid all but one of the debts at issue here, and his financial and personal circumstances are much improved. He is unlikely to incur such financial problems again, and the security concerns about his finances are mitigated. His request for security clearance eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-00836.h1


Guideline D; Guideline E

03/14/2019

Applicant cites to a statement by the Judge that Applicant had engaged the services of prostitutes on six occasions, whereas the record only demonstrated five. This comment is found only in the Judge’s summary of the case, at the very beginning of the Decision. His findings of fact do not reference six offenses, nor does his analysis. Indeed, the Judge’s findings are consistent with the record that was before him. To the extent that the challenged statement is an error, it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is harmless. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00757.a1


Financial

03/14/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00232.h1


Foreign Influence

03/14/2019

Applicant is a naturalized U.S citizen from Hong Kong, whose parents and extended family members are citizens and residents of Hong Kong. While Hong Kong's external affairs are controlled by the PRC, Hong Kong maintains relative independence in the management of its own internal affairs. Applicant has no financial or property interests in Hong Kong and is a fully assimilated naturalized U.S. citizen of over 15 years who was educated in the United States, has two children who are U.S. citizens by birth, and is a highly regarded engineer employed by her U.S. employer. Any risk of pressure, coercion, or influence brought to bear on Applicant or her family members in Hong Kong by PRC authorities is minimal. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04208.h1


Foreign Influence

03/14/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his continuing family and financial connections to Thailand. Based upon a review of the record as a whole, including the October 26, 2018 Appeal Board’s Remand Order, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03090.h2


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/14/2019

Applicant had seven delinquent accounts, totaling approximately $2,690, placed for collection, charged off, or reduced to judgments; she failed to timely file federal income tax returns for the tax years 2010 through 2015; and she has unpaid federal income tax, totaling approximately $43,237. There are also approximately one dozen delinquent debts that were not alleged in the SOR. All of those delinquent accounts, both alleged and non-alleged, and the unpaid federal income taxes remain unaddressed and delinquent. There is still no evidence that she has filed her federal income tax return for the tax year 2012. Applicant has displayed a lengthy pattern of a lack of candor. She has repeatedly denied having delinquent accounts when in fact there were some. Applicant has shown little voluntary efforts to address her delinquent debts. Her current financial situation is unknown. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Her eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02491.h1


Criminal

03/14/2019

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his 2012 arrest for felony aggravated child abuse. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 15-08183.h1


Financial

03/13/2019

Applicant’s excessive indebtedness regarding two real estate mortgage accounts totaling approximately one million dollars, related to his two property holdings, has been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00045.h1


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct

03/13/2019

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his visits to massage parlors offering the services of prostitutes and shoplifting food items at highway rest stops. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04312.h1


Financial

03/12/2019

Applicant mitigated financial security concerns about unfiled state and federal income tax returns and related tax debt. Applicant’s tax filing issues are in the past and he is making regular payments on his remaining tax debt. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01488.h1


Guideline F

03/12/2019

Applicant’s delinquent debts are recent and ongoing. His unemployment was a condition beyond his control. He did not provide any proof of financial counseling or of voluntary payments towards his delinquent debts. His child support debt was satisfied though an involuntary tax withholding. Although he has a plan to resolve his delinquent debts, he has not implemented it. He did not provide evidence of contacting creditors to make payment arrangements. He has not met his burden of persuasion. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00984.a1


Guideline E; Guideline M

03/12/2019

In deceiving IT personnel to capture the password and using it without authorization, Applicant repeatedly violated IT security procedures. This put his former employer’s IT systems at risk. While he contends he acted in the interest of organizational efficiency, he did so for his own convenience. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00827.a1


Financial

03/12/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00797.h1


Financial

03/12/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03922.h1


Financial; Foreign Influence

03/12/2019

Applicant has been supporting his parents; he paid his fiancée’s medical expenses; and he provides her and his minor child with support. He was unemployed for a substantial period. Applicant delayed addressing his delinquent accounts following the dismissal of his Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Before the SOR was issued, he engaged the professional services of several different organizations to clean up his financial situation by seeking settlements. He has been paying one organization $1,834 per month, and is anticipated to continue doing so until all of his delinquent debts are resolved. Several accounts have been resolved, and others are in the process of being resolved. With a monthly remainder of $3,720 available for discretionary saving or spending, there is clear evidence that his financial situation is now under control. While the foreign influence concern has been mitigated, once his fiancée’s application for a K-1 Visa to enter the United States from the Philippines is approved, the foreign influence security concern will become moot. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03229.h1


Guideline F

03/12/2019

A Judge is required to prepare a full and complete record which is provided to the Board on appeal. See Directive ¶¶ E3.1.19 and E3.1.29. Failure to preserve a complete record is error and can impair our ability to perform our review function. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-08257 at 5 (App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2007); see also ISCR Case No. 02-18668 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 10, 2004) and ISCR Case No. 12-04540 at 4, n. 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2014). Although the Judge summarized what he viewed as the pertinent aspects of Applicant’s exhibits, we have no way of knowing with certitude what else these documents may have contained that might have a bearing on the case. We conclude, therefore, that the Judge has failed to maintain a complete record, insofar as he admitted the content of documents without preserving the documents themselves for our review. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 17-03043.a1


Financial Considerations

03/11/2019

Applicant failed to timely file his Federal and state tax returns, has unpaid Federal and state income taxes, a state tax warrant, delinquent student loans, an unpaid judgment, and three collection accounts. He failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01099.h1


Financial

03/11/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00563.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

03/11/2019

Applicant has a history of financial problems, including a bankruptcy, unpaid Federal and state income taxes, and an automobile repossession. He did not disclose required financial information in his security clearance application. He failed to mitigate the resulting financial and personal security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00044.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/11/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns by his failure to file certain Federal income-tax returns after returning from serving as a civilian contractor in a combat zone. Personal conduct concerns were unfounded. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03047.h1


Guideline D; Guideline E

03/11/2019

In this case, as the Judge noted, the official who conducted Applicant’s interview and prepared the interview summary contained in GE 2 satisfied the authentication requirement of ¶ E3.1.20. Moreover, GE 2 meets the second prong of ¶ E3.1.20 because it is admissible as evidence of statements by a party opponent in accordance with FRE 801(d) or, in the alternative, is admissible as a record of a regularly recurring activity–in this case a security clearance investigation–under FRE 803(6). The Judge’s decision to admit GE 2 was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-02536.a2


Foreign Influence

03/08/2019

Applicant has worked under dangerous conditions as a linguist with the U.S. military in Afghanistan since 2014. His family ties to Afghanistan are outweighed by his relationships and loyalties in the United States. Foreign influence security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02276.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/08/2019

Applicant presented evidence sufficient to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guidelines F for financial considerations and E for personal conduct. His late filing of his tax returns for tax years 2015, 2016, and 2017, were attributable to a diagnosed mental condition and he is receiving treatment for that condition. Further, he voluntarily corrected his omission of his failure to file those returns on his August 2016 security clearance application during his security clearance interview. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01830.h1


Foreign Influence

03/08/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns under the guideline. He presented sufficient information to carry his burden. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01780.h1


Financial

03/08/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate financial responsibility, or that his financial problems are being resolved. The financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01662.h1


Foreign Influence

03/08/2019

Applicant is a loyal United States citizen who has been in this country for 20 years. She is close to, and maintains regular contact with, her parents, parents-in-law, and a sibling in China. Due to conflicts with government officials in the past, Applicant and her family, all Christians, appear to be known to the Chinese government. Chinese officials have expressed interest in her husband and his movements due to his nexus to the U.S. government. Applicant and family members have admitted they maintain worries and feel threatened by the Chinese government. Given these factors, I find that Foreign Influence security concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01504.h1


Financial

03/08/2019

Applicant incurred eight delinquent debts totaling $45,214. In 2016, she fell behind as a result of her driveway collapsing and sustaining a significant pay cut. Applicant sought financial counseling and has since paid or resolved all of her debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00904.h1


Finances

03/08/2019

Applicant acquired considerable debt after her 2015 divorce she could not adequately address on her own. Of the nearly $21,000 in delinquent debt, she recently satisfied about $2,500 in debt and made the first two payments on approximately two student loans amounting to over $16,000. While she has made some notable strides, her efforts at this point are insufficient to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00344.h1


Financial

03/08/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file his Federal income tax returns for eight of the last twelve years, or to take any steps to resolve the resulting $58,00 delinquent tax debt. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-00284.h1


Alcohol

03/08/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the alcohol consumption security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00088.h1


Criminal Conduct; Financial; Personal Conduct

03/07/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his criminal conduct, delinquent debts, and falsification of his security clearance application. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02399.h1


Financial

03/07/2019

Applicant has addressed all of his admitted past-due indebtedness. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02017.h1


Financial

03/07/2019

Applicant has not addressed any of his admitted past-due indebtedness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01827.h1


Financial

03/07/2019

Applicant has addressed all of her admitted past-due indebtedness. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01211.h1


Personal Conduct; Financial

03/07/2019

Applicant did not deliberately falsify the hours he worked. He was sloppy in his timekeeping practices and he has acknowledged his mistakes. He has taken corrective action, and credibly promised to properly report his work hours. He has established a strong professional reputation that weighs in his favor. He was candid and forthcoming during the clearance process. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04130.h1


Guideline K

03/07/2019

With regard to SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.f, he argues that he had a need-to-know the information in question. The issue of Applicant’s need-to-know is not pertinent to the security concerns raised in this case. SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.f do not raise concerns about the legality of Applicant’s access to the information in question; instead, they raise concerns about how he handled that information. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03588.a1


Guideline F

03/07/2019

Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, in particular information provided in his Answer to the SOR about his having prioritized payment of non-SOR obligations owed to family members. A Judge is not expected to address everything in the record, which would be a practical impossibility. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02841.a1


Guideline E

03/07/2019

Applicant asserts that the Judge “gave deference to the Government, raising concerns of Due Process” and established one standard for the Government and another for him for presenting evidence. To the extent that he is arguing the Judge is biased, we do not find this contention persuasive. There is a rebuttable presumption that a judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. We find nothing in the record either to persuade a reasonable person that the Judge lacked impartiality or to show the Judge applied different standards to the parties for presenting evidence. Applicant has failed to met his heavy burden of persuasion to establish bias. Both parties were provided an equal opportunity to present evidence supporting their cases. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02662.a1


Guideline E; Guideline F

03/07/2019

As best we can discern, Applicant is challenging the Judge’s conclusions that he falsified his SCA by failing to disclose he was fired from a job in 2011 and had reportable delinquent debts. The SOR did not allege that Applicant falsified his SCA. From our review of the record, the Judge’s findings about Applicant falsifying his SCA were based on substantial evidence or constituted reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the record. A Judge may consider conduct not alleged for purposes such as evaluating an applicant’s evidence in mitigation, assessing credibility, or applying the whole-person concept. We find no basis for concluding the Judge considered non-alleged conduct in an inappropriate manner. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-06431.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/06/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns about his delinquent debts or personal conduct. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02280.h1


Financial

03/06/2019

Applicant’s history of excessive indebtedness aggravated by circumstances beyond her control, has not been mitigated by a good-faith effort to resolve her debt or sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. National security eligibility for a determination of trustworthiness is denied. CASE NO: 18-01868.h1


Financial

03/06/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01702.h1


Financial

03/06/2019

Applicant’s past delinquent debts that total in excess of $34,000 have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence in mitigation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01589.h1


Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct

03/06/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the criminal conduct or personal conduct security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01353.h1


Financial

03/06/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by her delinquent taxes and other debts. Access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01256.h1


Foreign Influence

03/06/2019

Applicant’s foreign family members who are citizens and residents of Hong Kong, including his mother, three brothers, and two sisters, do not pose a significant security risk to the U.S. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01247.h1


Handling Protected Information

03/06/2019

Applicant committed three security violations, one in 2014; one in 2016; and one in 2017, which show poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness, and have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00766.h1


Guideline B; Guideline C; Guideline E

03/06/2019

We agree the Judge erred in failing to analyze Applicant’s contention that he did not understand the question when he submitted his SCA and, on the same day, disclosed his marijuana use during his counterintelligence screening. However, this error was harmless because, given Applicant’s other questionable conduct, it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03978.a1


Guideline E

03/06/2019

Applicant also contends that the Judge was biased. In doing so, he points out that she questioned his use of military vernacular in a his workplace. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial. A party seeking to rebut that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion on appeal. The transcript reflects that the Judge also stated she was offended by one of Applicant’s alleged statements; she counseled him about “pushing the envelope”; she did not agree with, accept, or believe aspects of his testimony; she stated she would have called the police on him; and she twice counseled him to tell the truth. Based on our review of the record, we conclude a reasonable person might question the Judge’s impartiality based on the referenced comments. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 17-03898.a1


Guideline F

03/06/2019

We have examined Applicant’s due process issue in light of the record as a whole. At the hearing on July 10, 2018, Applicant did not submit any exhibits. The Judge left the record open until August 3, 2018, to provide Applicant the opportunity to submit documentary evidence. In the decision, the Judge notes that Applicant did not submit any post-hearing documentation. A footnote in the decision also states, “Confirmed with Department Counsel on November 30, 2018, that no post-hearing documents were submitted.” Applicant does not state when or to whom he supposedly sent his post-hearing submission. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he submitted the document in question. Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant was not denied his right to due process. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02109.a1


Guideline E; Guideline F

03/06/2019

Applicant contends that her SCA omissions were not deliberate. For example, she claims she had no clue what was on her credit report until she was interviewed by an investigator. We note that Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact pertaining to the falsification allegations. It also merits noting that circumstantial evidence may establish an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the alleged falsification occurred. Additionally, we are required to give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. From our review of the record, the Judge’s material findings about the falsification allegations are based on substantial record evidence or constitute reasonable inferences or conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge erred in concluding that she falsified her SCA. Adverse decision affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 16-00791.a1


Drugs

03/05/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under the guideline for drug involvement and substance misuse, relating to his illegal use of marijuana and prescription drugs. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02282.h1


Financial

03/05/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Applicant continues to have significant federal student loan debts that remain delinquent and increasing. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01802.h1


Guideline E

03/05/2019

We conclude that the Judge did not deny Applicant a fair opportunity to prepare his case. Directive ¶ E3.1.17 provides that the SOR may be amended by the Judge at the hearing for good cause and that the Judge may grant a request for additional time for further preparation. Neither at the hearing nor on appeal has Applicant contended that there was no good cause for the amendment. Rather, he simply argues inadequate preparation time. Even if he had not waived this issue by withdrawing the objection, the issue is groundless. The Judge was willing to entertain a request for a continuance, which Applicant declined to seek. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00753.a1


Financial

03/05/2019

When Applicant completed his e-QIP, he acknowledged only two financial issues: he was evicted from an apartment for inability to pay the rent, and a delinquent credit card that his ex-wife was supposed to pay. He actually had 20 delinquent accounts that had been placed for collection, charged off, or repossessed, totaling $21,206. Nearly all of those delinquent accounts continue to be unaddressed and unresolved, despite Applicant being fully employed since February 2017. Applicant has made minimal documented efforts to resolve his delinquent debts despite promising to do so. He has not obtained financial counseling. There is no evidence of a budget, and he offered no evidence to indicate that his financial situation has improved, or that it is now under control. To the contrary, a new non-SOR delinquent debt, an education loan with an unpaid balance of $5,941, was recently added to Applicant’s portfolio of collections. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00426.h1


Financial

03/05/2019

Applicant filed her delinquent income tax returns. She paid her delinquent state income taxes. She obtained a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge of approximately 90 percent of the outstanding balance due on her delinquent federal income taxes, and she has organized a payment plan for the remaining balance. These facts, when considered together with the cause of her income tax problems, compel me to conclude she has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility to continue working in a public trust position is granted. CASE NO: 17-03967.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/05/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by her falsification of her clearance application, and the over $53,000 delinquent debts she failed to disclose none of which had been resolved. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 17-03876.h1


Foreign Influence

03/05/2019

Applicant has mitigated the concerns related to his family members in Afghanistan. His request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03754.h1


Guideline E

03/05/2019

Directive ¶ E3.1.20 permits the admission at a DOHA proceeding of official records or evidence compiled in the regular course of business, without an authenticating witness. Directive ¶ E3.1.19 provides that the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) serve as a guide in DOHA proceedings. FRE 803(6) permits the admission of records of regularly conducted business activity. A report that an employer is legally required to make is part of the employer’s regular course of business. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, a document that Applicant’s former employer was required to submit by the provisions of the NISPOM relevant to Applicant’s eligibility for access to national security information is an official record under ¶ E3.1.20. It is also a business record under FRE 803(6). Such evidence is admissible despite a hearsay objection because it is considered inherently trustworthy. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03446.a1


Guideline F

03/05/2019

Evidence was adduced at the hearing that Applicant had not filed his 2016 Federal income tax return in a timely fashion. Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR to add an allegation to that effect, the SOR being silent on the point. The Judge overruled Applicant’s objection and granted the motion. Applicant requested three months in which to address the new allegation. The Judge held the record open from August 9, 2018, the date of the hearing, until September 27, 2018. Accordingly, the amendment was founded upon evidence that was properly before the Judge, and it rendered the SOR in conformity therewith. We find no error in the Judge’s decision to grant Applicant less additional time than he requested, although he allowed him well over a month and a half after the hearing to present evidence in mitigation of the new allegation. The Judge did not abuse his discretion in amending the SOR. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02588.a1


Financial Considerations

03/05/2019

Applicant failed to file his 2013, 2014, and 2015 Federal income tax returns and failed to file his 2015 state income tax return in a timely manner. He had two student loan obligations of approximately $27,000 and three charged-off accounts totaling approximately $750. He has filed his tax returns and received sizable refunds, paid his charged-off accounts, and is current on his student loan obligation. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-01587.h1


Personal Conduct; Financial Considerations

03/05/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F. Personal conduct concerns under Guideline E were not established. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 17-00312.h1


Guideline B; Guideline F

03/05/2019

The Directive does not require the Government to prove such matters to raise Guideline B security concerns. Department Counsel need only prove controverted facts in the SOR allegations. Directive ¶ E3.1.14. Once the SOR allegations are admitted or proven, the burden shifted to Applicant to mitigate the resulting security concerns. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. By asking those questions, the Judge erred in placing the burden on the Government to prove matters that the Directive does not require. Furthermore, the Judge found “The PRC has a poor record with respect to human rights, suppresses political dissent, and its practices include arbitrary arrest and detention, forced confessions, torture, and mistreatment of prisoners. The PRC engages in espionage against the United States and is one of the two most active collectors of U.S. economic intelligence and technology.” Favorable decision reversed. CASE NO: 14-02149.a1


Financial

03/04/2019

Applicant exercised financial irresponsibility when he made a strategic decision to default on his home mortgage in 2011. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based upon a review of the pleadings, and exhibits, national security eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02072.h1


Financial Considerations

03/04/2019

Applicant owed unpaid federal taxes for tax year 2009, was past-due on her mortgage, and had 35 additional delinquent medical obligations. She failed to provide documentation showing her action to address her delinquent obligations. She failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02048.h1


Foreign Influence

03/04/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the foreign influence concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01998.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

03/04/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations and Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01967.h1


Financial

03/04/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his $27,000 in delinquent debts—including delinquent education loans—none of which had been addressed. Eligibility for a public trust position denied. CASE NO: 18-01718.h1


Financial

03/04/2019

Applicant’s federal and state income tax returns were not timely filed for several years. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01092.h1


Financial

03/04/2019

When Applicant completed his e-QIP, he denied having any financial issues. He actually had 19 delinquent accounts that had been placed for collection, charged off, or reduced to judgment totaling $93,582. Those delinquent accounts all continue to be unaddressed and unresolved by Applicant, despite his being fully employed since November 2016, and receiving a salary increase in April 2017. Applicant has made no efforts to resolve his delinquent debts despite promising to do so. Applicant has not obtained financial counseling. There is no evidence of a budget, and he offered no evidence to indicate that his financial situation has improved, or that it is now under control. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00286.h1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

03/04/2019

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his service in the British Army, continued connections with former comrades in arms, and financial interests in the United Kingdom. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03026.h2


Personal Conduct

03/04/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-02413.h1


Guideline H

03/01/2019

Once Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, none of the alleged facts remained controverted and the Government no longer had the burden of production. At that point, she became responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the resulting security concerns. Furthermore, in a signed statement, Applicant admitted she knowingly used another individual’s medical marijuana. Applicant’s security specialist position and her security responsibilities were appropriate factors for the Judge to consider in determining her security clearance eligibility in that they bear upon her knowledge of the security significance of her conduct. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00896.a1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

03/01/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate his recurrent use of marijuana between 1975 and May 2017. Allegations of falsification of his security clearance application are unsubstantiated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00655.h1


Guideline E

03/01/2019

Applicant’s divorce decree included a custody agreement. In 2011, he submitted an amendment to the decree granting him custody of a child from that marriage. An investigation revealed the amendment was not a legitimate court document. His ex-wife’s signature on that document was forged and the judge’s signature was copied and pasted from the original decree. In 2016, he was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with making false official statements on DoD forms pertaining to pay entitlements and larceny. He requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, which was approved. He is paying restitution and has already paid about $20,000. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00173.a1


Guideline E; Guideline K

03/01/2019

Applicant testified that he had never worn his invalid classified badge at site 1. This is not consistent with statements that he made during the inquiry. This badge allowed him access to classified areas, and he would wear it over his unclassified badge to give the impression that he had an active clearance. “He did this fourteen times between October 10 and October 29, 2013. While in the secret-closed area, Applicant logged onto a classified network system eleven times between October 18 and October 29, 2013, logging 499 minutes.” Decision at 4. Applicant did not advise his supervisor where his classified badge came from, and he did not seek clarification of the status of his clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04251.a1


Guideline E; Guideline F

03/01/2019

The record does not support Applicant’s claim that Department Counsel misled him. First, Applicant has failed to specify exactly what Department Counsel stated to mislead him, what information he provided Department Counsel that now concerns him, and how disclosure of that information may have harmed him. Second, Applicant did not raise this issue at the hearing and, therefore, did not provide the Judge an opportunity to inquire into it. Third, Applicant first called Department Counsel “a couple of weeks” before the hearing. In Department Counsel’s discovery letter, Department Counsel advised, “I am the attorney assigned to represent the Government at the hearing” at which “you may represent yourself, retain an attorney, or be assisted by a personal representative, such as a friend, family member, or union representative.” Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03228.a1


Financial

02/28/2019

Applicant mitigated his history of financial problems that resulted from conditions that were beyond his control. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01993.h1


Financial

02/28/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01764.h1


Financial

02/28/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01604.h1


Foreign Influence

02/28/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline B, foreign influence. His spouse, parents, four siblings, and in-laws are all citizens and residents of Afghanistan. He failed to show sufficient deep and longstanding ties to the United States to mitigate the security concerns raised by their presence in Afghanistan. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01593.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/28/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under the financial guideline. He intentionally falsified his 2017 security clearance application on five sections. He has not mitigated the concerns under the personal conduct security guideline. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01514.h1


Drugs

02/28/2019

Applicant illegally used marijuana between 2005 and May 2018. He used marijuana after he submitted his security clearance application in May 2017, and after he was questioned about his illegal marijuana use during a background interview in December 2017. The passage of time so far is insufficient to demonstrate his reliability, trustworthiness, ability to comply with the law, rules and regulations, and his ability to protect classified information. Drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns are not mitigated. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 18-01496.h1


Financial

02/28/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to establish that she has been financially responsible, and that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01354.h1


Alcohol

02/28/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the alcohol consumption security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00314.h1


Financial

02/28/2019

Applicant provided sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate the financial problems he encountered with a residential investment property, which resulted in a past-due mortgage loan that was eventually resolved by a foreclosure sale in September 2018. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 18-00241.h1


Foreign Influence

02/28/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the foreign influence security concerns arising from his connections to family members in Nigeria. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04278.h1


Financial

02/28/2019

Applicant demonstrated that circumstances beyond her control contributed to or aggravated her financial problems. She should have been more diligent addressing her delinquent accounts. Notwithstanding, she recently paid off all of her delinquent accounts (except one) and demonstrated to be living within her financial means. Her financial problems are resolved or are being resolved. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 17-04175.h1


Financial Considerations

02/28/2019

Available information is sufficient to support a fair and commonsense conclusion that the trustworthiness concerns raised by Applicant’s financial problems are mitigated. His request for eligibility to occupy a position of trust is granted. CASE NO: 17-04117.h1


Guideline B

02/28/2019

In Foreign Influence cases, the nature of the foreign government and its intelligence gathering history are important considerations. There is a rational connection between an applicant’s family ties in a country whose interests are adverse to those of the U.S. and the risk that the applicant may fail to protect classified information. In-laws represent a class of persons who are contemplated by the Directive as presenting a potential security risk. As a matter of common sense and human experience there is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family members of the person’s spouse. China has a large, professionalized cyber-espionage community but also utilizes private citizens or organizations to target U.S. data. China has a poor human rights record and, among other things, engages in surveillance of telephone conversations, fax transmissions, emails, text messaging, and internet communications. Favorable decision reversed. CASE NO: 17-03450.a1


Financial

02/28/2019

Applicant did not timely file her federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2015, in part, because of problems with her spouse, allocation of deductions, and lack of understanding of the tax-filing process. She is credited with filing most of her overdue tax returns and paying all of her established tax debts and other delinquent debts. However, proof of filing of all overdue tax returns is necessary to fully mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-01523.h1


Financial Considerations; Foreign Influence

02/28/2019

Applicant had eight delinquent accounts that were either past due, charged off, or in collection, which totaled in excess of $54,000. Additionally, his parents and father-in-law are citizens and residents of Cameroon. He has mitigated the foreign influence security concern, but has made insufficient progress toward resolving his past-due debts. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 16-04082.h1


Foreign Influence; Financial

02/27/2019

Applicant’s 2007 Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge involved $845,202 in total liabilities. Applicant denied on his e-QIP having any delinquent accounts or charged-off accounts. In doing so he concealed his delinquent accounts. In 2017, Applicant stated that since his bankruptcy discharge, he re-established his credit, and that his financial status since the bankruptcy was stable. He added that he felt he was capable of meeting his current financial obligations. Both of those statements were inaccurate. He subsequently acknowledged that despite the bankruptcy discharge, he still owed large amounts of money to family and friends. In 2017, he reported that he had 23 different accounts totaling $117,230. Applicant did not submit any documentation, such as cancelled checks, bank statements, receipts, etc., to indicate that any monthly payments were made to any of Applicant’s creditors. Applicant’s gambling over the years, as well as his unexplained large cash transactions associated with casinos, remain a security concern, especially since he refused to provide details of those transactions. There is no evidence to conclude that his financial problems are under control. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01653.h1


Financial

02/27/2019

Applicant accumulated home equity and mortgage debts that have not been resolved. Financial concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01601.h1


Financial

02/27/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by a delinquent car loan and failing to file Federal and state tax returns when due. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00171.h1


Financial

02/27/2019

Applicant has several delinquent debts. They were incurred several years ago, but they remain ongoing and unresolved. He did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial security concern. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04218.h1


Alcohol

02/27/2019

Given Applicant’s long history of alcohol abuse, his diagnosis with alcohol dependence, and his post-diagnosis relapse, it is too soon to conclude Applicant has mitigated the alcohol consumption security concern. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04097.h1


Financial

02/27/2019

Applicant was untimely in the filing of her 2013-2014 federal and state income tax returns and accumulated delinquent federal and state income taxes for tax year 2013. She completed an installment agreement with the IRS and filed her federal and state tax returns for the years in issue in September 2017, untimely but prior to the issuance of the SOR. Additionally, she repaid all of her delinquent federal and state taxes. Aided by a strong whole-person assessment, Applicant mitigated financial consideration concerns. Eligibility to hold a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03919.h1


Drugs

02/27/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his marijuana use. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03874.h1


Alcohol Consumption

02/27/2019

Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse resulting in failed treatment, and three alcohol-related arrests. Applicant has sincerely pursued treatment, counseling, and completed a one-year ignition interlock program. He has continued to abstain from alcohol since 2016 and has changed his lifestyle. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-02475.h1


Alcohol Consumption, Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse, and Criminal Conduct

02/26/2019

Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse resulting in treatment, misuse of prescription medication, and recent one-time use of marijuana while holding a security clearance. She also was arrested and convicted of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. Applicant has sincerely pursued treatment, counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous, and completed a two-year use of an ignition interlock device. She has continued to abstain from alcohol, stopped all use of marijuana, continued treatment and medications as prescribed, and has changed her lifestyle. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00686.h1


Foreign Influence

02/26/2019

Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate security concerns based on family members in South Korea. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00665.h1


Alcohol

02/26/2019

Applicant drank to excess resulting in alcohol-detoxification treatment and counseling. While his security eligibility was pending, he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Concerns about Applicant’s alcohol use and alcohol-related arrest were not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00663.h1


Financial

02/26/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. The circumstances of her indebtedness resulted from circumstances beyond her control, and she took responsible action to address those within her means, and the remaining debts were otherwise resolved. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00519.h1


Handling Protected Information; Misuse of Information Technology

02/26/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by security violations and allegations of misuse of information technology that occurred during the conduct of his information security responsibilities as the company information systems security officer. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-04374.h1


Drugs

02/26/2019

Applicant used marijuana a few times from 1982 until 1989, from 2009 until 2014, once in May 2014, and again once in 2017. She was granted eligibility for access to classified information in June 2014, and used marijuana knowingly and voluntarily in 2017. Applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate security concerns for drug involvement and substance abuse. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04287.h1


Financial

02/26/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent debts and failing to file Federal and state tax returns when due. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03972.h1


Financial

02/26/2019

Based on Applicant’s compliance with the Government’s request for production of tax documents, the credible explanation that he provided for the tax issues, and his tenacious efforts to resolve those issues, he has mitigated the security concerns arising from the guideline for financial considerations. Eligibility for security clearance access is granted. CASE NO: 17-03836.h1


Financial

02/26/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his over $99,000 delinquent debts, where he failed to show the current status of his rehabilitated education loan and tax repayments, where he had repaid another seven delinquent debts only after he received the SOR, and where he had filed again for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on the eve of the hearing, but had not yet gotten an approved repayment plan. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 16-04112.h1


Financial

02/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations. He provided sufficient documentation to establish future financial problems are unlikely. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02381.h1


Foreign Influence

02/25/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02199.h1


Financial; Foreign Influence

02/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence, but not under Guideline F, financial considerations. He has outstanding federal tax liens and other delinquent debts. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-01649.h1


Financial

02/25/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01439.h1


Criminal or Dishonest Conduct; Alcohol Abuse

02/25/2019

Applicant has mitigated the CAC eligibility concerns about alcohol abuse, but he has not mitigated the eligibility concerns raised by his criminal conduct. CAC eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-00887.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/25/2019

This case alleges security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00850.h1


Drugs

02/25/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00771.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct; Alcohol

02/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the alcohol consumption security concern, but failed to mitigate the security concerns based on his use of marijuana while possessing a security clearance, and his falsifications on his 2010 and 2016 security clearance applications. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00446.h1


Sexual Conduct; Personal Conduct; Criminal Activity

02/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns related to his illegal, extramarital sexual activity. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00387.h1


Financial

02/25/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04113.h1


Personal Conduct

02/25/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct security concerns alleged in the SOR, including numerous petty and driving offenses. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 17-02424.h1


Financial

02/25/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts and his lack of candor in his security clearance application. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-01075.h1


Foreign Influence

02/22/2019

Applicant’s ties to Syria are outweighed by his deep and long-standing relationships and loyalties in the United States. Foreign influence security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01833.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/22/2019

Applicant’s history of financial problems and his lack of attention towards resolving his significant debt outweigh the mitigating factors in his case. Applicant’s deliberate omissions of his financial problems on his security clearance application raise further questions about his trustworthiness and reliability. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01564.h1


Financial

02/22/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial guideline, as she provided no documentary evidence of resolution of her delinquent debts. Eligibility for a position of public trust is denied. CASE NO: 18-01231.h1


Financial

02/22/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial guideline, as she has not provided sufficient documentary evidence of resolution of her delinquent debts. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00452.h1


Information Technology; Personal Conduct

02/22/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the use of information technology and personal conduct security concerns alleged in the SOR. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 17-01145.h1


Financial; Criminal Conduct

02/21/2019

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his nine-year-old criminal conduct and his delinquent debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01587.h1


Foreign Influence, Foreign Preference

02/21/2019

Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Senegal, does not have a foreign preference for France. Even though he maintains ties to Senegal and France, he has shown that he will resolve any potential conflicts of interest in favor of the United States. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-01145.h1


Foreign Influence

02/19/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns alleged in the SOR. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-02055.h1


Financial

02/19/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns alleged in the statement of reasons including delinquent filing of income tax returns, and tax debts. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01680.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

02/19/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) or Guideline E (personal conduct). Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01255.h1


Financial

02/19/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate financial responsibility, or that her financial problems are being resolved. The financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01240.h1


Foreign Influence

02/19/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his immediate family members in Taiwan as well as his wife’s immediate family members in Taiwan. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00852.h1


Foreign Influence, Financial

02/19/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the foreign influence security concerns arising from his connections to family and friends in Afghanistan. He did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns related to his unpaid delinquent debts. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00117.h1


Financial

02/19/2019

Applicant did not present information that shows all of the debts in the SOR have been paid or resolved. Applicant did not mitigate financial conduct security concerns because she did not present adequate evidence of a plan to address her delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04399.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/19/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial guideline, but she has mitigated the personal conduct concerns as she did not falsify her security clearance application. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02594.h1


Financial

02/15/2019

Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, to include Federal taxes, which are unpaid and unresolved. There was no showing by Applicant of any effort to pay, legitimately dispute, or otherwise resolve any of the financial security concerns. He failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01738.h1


Guideline G

02/15/2019

Applicant challenges the Judge’s comment that there is no strong evidence that he will remain sober for a year or two, if that long. He notes that the Judge herself found that Applicant has been sober for two years and intends to remain so, arguing that the challenged comment is arbitrary and capricious. However, evidence that Applicant has twice been diagnosed as alcohol dependent and twice has failed to maintain sobriety, along with the Judge’s finding that he currently does not have a sponsor and intends to obtain counseling sometime in the future, support her overall conclusion that Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation to overcome the security concerns in his case. Therefore, any error in the challenged statement is harmless, in that it did not likely affect the overall outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00782.a1


Personal Conduct; Financial

02/15/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct and financial considerations security concerns by his involvement in a fraudulent relationship with a foreign national and irresponsible transfer of substantial funds overseas, causing Applicant’s bankruptcy. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00187.h1


Personal Conduct; Handling Protected Information; and Misuse of Information Technology

02/15/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his actions to copy protected, sensitive, and proprietary files from a company computer for his personal use, and falsifying his actions before company personnel and a Government investigator. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03051.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/15/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his failure to file and pay his taxes for three years, as required, and by his misconduct when he was arrested for DUI and then failed to report the arrest to his security officer, as required by his employer’s rules. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02517.h1


Guideline F

02/15/2019

Applicant argues that he was not provided due process because of the length of time it has taken to process his case. His argument fails to establish that he was denied any due process rights under the Directive. He was provided adequate notice of, and opportunity to respond to, the alleged security concerns. The Appeal Board has no authority to rule on delays in conducting security investigations or in processing cases. Applicant also argues the purported delays contributed to his decision to not seek legal representation in this case. This argument has no merit. The Judge properly advised Applicant of his rights to have a lawyer or personal representative assist him at the hearing, and Applicant acknowledged he understood those rights. He knowingly waived his right to legal representation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02208.a1


Guideline F

02/15/2019

The Judge failed to address that Applicant did not file his Federal income tax return for 2009 as required. His 2009 IRS tax transcript reflects that the IRS filed a substitute tax return for him in early February 2012 and determined he owed an additional $44,731 of taxes for that tax year. Applicant changed his W-4 exemptions to “ten” for 2011. Due to that change in exemptions, Applicant testified “they weren’t taking any taxes out” of his pay. Id. He used the extra money to purchase a custom motorcycle, which was an item on his “bucket list.” When analyzing a case, a Judge must consider the evidence as a whole and not view it in an isolated or piecemeal manner that focuses only on matters favorable to one party. In this case, the Judge erred by failing to analyze significant matters that undermined his mitigation analysis. Favorable decision reversed. CASE NO: 17-00944.a1


Financial

02/14/2019

Applicant failed to resolve delinquent debts primarily caused by her serious medical problems and student loans. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns alleged in the SOR. CASE NO: 18-02133.h1


Financial

02/14/2019

Applicant has significant past-due indebtedness that he has yet to reasonably address. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02071.h1


Financial

02/14/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01760.h1


Financial

02/14/2019

Applicant has a long history of not filing his Federal and state income tax returns in a timely fashion. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00980.h1


Financial

02/14/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate financial responsibility, or that his financial problems are being resolved. The financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00967.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

02/14/2019

Applicant contends that the omission of the his tax filing deficiencies on his SCA was not deliberate. He argues that he did not remember not filing his taxes for the years in question. In this regard, we note that Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s findings of fact pertaining to the falsification allegation. A falsification, even in the face of an applicant’s denial of such conduct, can be established through circumstantial evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00428.a1


Foreign Influence

02/14/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns alleged in the Statement of Reasons. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-00149.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

02/14/2019

When evaluating the deliberate nature of an alleged falsification, a Judge should consider the applicant’s mens rea in light of the entirety of the record evidence. As a practical matter, a finding regarding an applicant’s intent or state of mind may not always be based on an applicant’s statements, but rather may rely on circumstantial evidence. Additionally, the Appeal Board gives deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. From our review of the record, the Judge’s findings that Applicant deliberately falsified SCA responses are based on substantial evidence or constitute a reasonable inference that could be drawn from the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03932.a1


Guideline E

02/14/2019

Applicant contends that the Judge erred in finding that the colleague sought a protective order. He argues that this finding is a misreading of a memorandum for record by the FSO, included in the record as Item 4. He contends that there is no evidence that the colleague actually sought a protective order. The pertinent language in the FSO’s memo is as follows: “I was contacted by the [sheriff’s office] and advised that the [colleague] was seeking a protective order against [Applicant] as result of [Applicant’s] expression of emotional instability and the threatening language of the online conversation.” The challenged finding is consistent with this evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03840.a1


Personal Conduct

02/14/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03264.h1


CAC

02/14/2019

Applicant, who is 55 years old, was arrested and charged with felony first-degree assault, misdemeanor second-degree assault, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment in 2016. At that time, he was living with his girlfriend and their two-year-old child. He became angry when he thought his girlfriend hid his car keys. He climbed on top of her in bed and choked her for about ten seconds. He allegedly said, “I should kill you now.” She told police she feared he would kill her and there had been other unreported incidents of domestic violence. The charges were dismissed and expunged from his record. He provided a statement of his community involvement. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-01458.a2


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/14/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under the personal conduct security concern guideline. She did not mitigate the financial considerations security guideline. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-00893.h1


Financial

02/13/2019

Applicant has a history of financial problems, including unpaid taxes, judgments, and delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01674.h1


Personal Conduct; Financial

02/13/2019

Applicant was administratively discharged by the U.S. Army, and issued a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions, due in part to writing checks with insufficient funds; he misused company credit cards with different employers, and he was either disciplined or terminated; he has eight delinquent accounts that had been placed for collection or charged off, totaling approximately $27,364; he was previously denied a security clearance; and he has not shown any voluntary effort to address his delinquent debts. There is no evidence to indicate that Applicant ever received financial counseling, and there is no evidence to reflect that his financial problems are under control. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01364.h1


Guideline F

02/13/2019

The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt. Debts may fall off credit reports for various reasons, including the passage of time. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01250.a1


Financial

02/13/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from his delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00834.h1


Criminal or Dishonest Conduct; Intentional False Statements

02/13/2019

Applicant engaged in misconduct at work when she stole money from a coworker’s purse. Further, after she was terminated as a result of that misconduct, she falsified her 2017 Declaration for Federal Employment. CAC eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-00533.h1


Alcohol

02/13/2019

Applicant mitigated the alcohol consumption security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02415.h1


Financial Considerations

02/13/2019

At one time, after being unemployed for six months, Applicant was past due on student loans, past due on a home equity line of credit, and owed approximately $15,500 for two medical debts. The line of credit against his home equity was paid when his house sold and he is current on the consolidation student loan debt. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 16-03163.h1


Financial Considerations; Foreign Influence

02/12/2019

Applicant’s history of excessive indebtedness, and his foreign contacts that include his fiancé, who is a citizen and resident of Iran, who he met on-line, and has physically seen three times, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02070.h1


Guideline F

02/12/2019

Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-01182.a1


Financial

02/12/2019

Applicant presented evidence sufficient to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. His financial delinquencies were attributable to circumstances beyond his control and he is acting responsibly by making payments on his debts as he is able. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00952.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

02/12/2019

Applicant’s history of illegal drug use involving cocaine, marijuana, and the use of Vyvance, without a prescription, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00949.h1


Financial

02/12/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from his delinquent student loans. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00936.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

02/12/2019

Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is affirmed. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00633.a1


Guideline F

02/12/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-01199.a1


Guideline F

02/12/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were not previously submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-01008.a1


Guideline F

02/12/2019

Applicant correctly notes the Judge erred in stating Applicant pays child support for one child when he in fact paid child support for all three of his children. The Judge aptly described the circumstances that led to the child support arrearage as convoluted. The Judge ultimately found Applicant’s child support arrearage arose from conditions beyond Applicant’s control and that he had acted responsibly under the circumstances given he “had physical of custody of the three children” while paying their expenses and child support at the same time. While the Judge erred in a finding of fact about the number of children Applicant supported, the error did not affect the outcome of the case. We conclude, therefore, this identified error was harmless. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-00464.a1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

02/11/2019

Applicant used marijuana over a period of about four years, the last time only about two years ago. He still associates with at least one drug user. Although he has now signed a letter of intent eschewing future drug involvement, Applicant averred he might use it when he executed his SF-86. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01786.h1


Drugs

02/11/2019

Applicant used marijuana over a period of about 16~17 years. His last usage was only about 18 months ago. He then told a SA that intended to use marihuana in the future, but has, only most recently, recanted that averment. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01477.h1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

02/11/2019

Applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct and Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01186.h1


Financial

02/11/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns related to his history of delinquent debts. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01121.h1


Financial

02/11/2019

Applicant has about $130,000 in past-due debt that he has yet to address. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04131.h1


Financial

02/11/2019

ADP case. Applicant has mitigated the concerns related to her financial situation. Her request for national security eligibility and access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03773.h1


Security Violations; Information Technology; Personal Conduct

02/11/2019

Applicant had a security infraction, mishandled protected information, and falsified his employee time card in 2015. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-02612.h1


Financial; Foreign Influence

02/11/2019

Applicant’s Philippine relatives and property interests pose a threat to national security. He also has considerable past-due debt. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-00473.h1


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

02/11/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign preference trustworthiness concern, but he did not mitigate the foreign influence trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 16-03269.h1


Financial Considerations

02/08/2019

A fair and commonsense assessment of the record evidence as a whole shows the security concerns raised by Applicant’s failure to timely file her income tax returns are mitigated. Her request for security clearance eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-02132.h1


Financial

02/08/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to establish that she has been financially responsible and that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01134.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/08/2019

Applicant mitigated concerns about his finances. He did not intentionally provide false information on a 2016 Questionnaire for National Security Positions. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01044.h1


Alcohol; Criminal; and Personal Conduct

02/08/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the criminal conduct, personal conduct, and alcohol consumption security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00857.h1


Sexual Behavior; Criminal Conduct; Financial; Personal Conduct

02/08/2019

Applicant has a history of criminal behavior and other conduct of security concern. He owes about $48,000 in delinquent child support. He filed his federal and state tax returns for tax years 2016 and 2017 after he received the statement of reasons (SOR). Guidelines D (sexual behavior), J (criminal conduct), F (financial considerations), and E (personal conduct) security concerns are not mitigated. Access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00685.h1


Handling Protected Information

02/08/2019

Applicant did not follow the proper procedure three times in a four month period for securing a Special Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Applicant presented sufficient information to establish that his actions were not deliberate but acts of negligent omission. His failure to follow proper procedures does not raise questions of judgment, reliability, candor, and willingness to comply with rules and regulations. He responded adequately to counsel with no other violations in two years. Applicant mitigated handling of protected information security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03798.h1


Financial

02/08/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-01988.h1


Financial

02/08/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-00822.h1


Financial

02/08/2019

While Applicant’s financial difficulties arose from circumstances largely beyond his control, he failed to act reasonably under the circumstances and did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his finances. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-00795.h1


Drugs

02/07/2019

Applicant mitigated security concerns about his illegal drug use. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01613.h1


Personal Conduct; Financial Considerations; Criminal Conduct

02/07/2019

Applicant’s criminal conduct involving larceny and fraud against the Government, while in the Navy, which occurred almost eleven years ago, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01502.h1


Personal Conduct

02/07/2019

Applicant did not timely report that a document prepared by his wife to establish a debt had been resolved that he submitted during the security clearance process was false. His failure to report the false document until confronted during a polygraph examination raises questions of judgment, reliability, candor, and willingness to comply with rules and regulations. Applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-02414.h1


Alcohol; Personal Conduct

02/07/2019

Applicant had four alcohol-related driving arrests and additional criminal behavior, and he violated policy and security rules and procedures in the workplace. He did not mitigate the concerns raised by his alcohol consumption and personal conduct. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 14-05801.h1


Criminal Conduct; Alcohol Consumption; Personal Conduct

02/06/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, and personal conduct security concerns alleged in the SOR including three DUI arrests and numerous other driving offenses. CASE NO: 18-01616.h1


Financial

02/06/2019

Applicant’s response to the Government’s information mitigated the security concerns about his finances. Applicant’s request for eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01533.h1


Handling Protected Information

02/06/2019

Applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns raised by security infractions for which she was involved. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01500.h1


Financial

02/06/2019

Applicant owes approximately $14,347 in defaulted federal student-loan debt, $3,619 in child-support delinquency, $5,807 to a former landlord for past-due rent and damages, and some small collection debts. Unemployment and low income were factors in the delinquencies, but his financial situation continues to raise security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01328.h1


Personal Conduct

02/06/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the personal conduct security concerns about her suitability to hold a security clearance, which relate to academic sanctions during college for plagiarism, various false claims in her personal life, and multiple falsifications on a security clearance application. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00902.h1


Financial, Foreign Influence

02/06/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns, but failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04338.h1


Financial

02/06/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent debts, including Federal tax delinquencies. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04310.h1


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

02/06/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the concerns related to his three alcohol-related arrests between 2003 and 2016. He is on probation until 2021 and has only been sober since June 2017. His request for national security eligibility and a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03558.h1


Financial

02/06/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his over $20,000 delinquent education loans, which were due to his failure to fully understand the terms of the loans, and which were addressed only after he received the SOR. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 16-03093.h1


Financial

02/05/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations. He failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish mitigation with respect to his consumer debts and failure to file Federal tax returns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01774.h1


Financial

02/05/2019

Applicant’s failure to file his Federal income tax returns for tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, has been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01751.h1


Financial

02/05/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations. He failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish mitigation with respect to his delinquent consumer debt and student loan. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01518.h1


Drugs

02/05/2019

Applicant used marijuana while holding a security clearance and after he submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions in which he stated that he did not intend to use marijuana in the future. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00962.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

02/05/2019

Applicant’s use of marijuana while holding a security clearance has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00650.h1


Financial

02/05/2019

Applicant essentially ignored her debts totaling $14,287 over the years, but eventually was motivated to start addressing them once she decided to apply for a new job. That motivation did not commence until she was interviewed by an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Her mortgage was foreclosed, a vehicle was apparently repossessed, and several debts are still ignored. She contended that there were repayment arrangements, but failed to submit documentation to support her contentions, even after the File of Relevant Material (FORM) was sent to her. There is no evidence to indicate that Applicant ever received financial counseling. It is unclear if she has funds remaining at the end of each month for discretionary use or savings. There is no evidence to reflect that Applicant’s financial problems are under control. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Her eligibility to occupy a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 17-02381.h1


Foreign Influence

02/05/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under the foreign influence security concern guideline. Eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-00832.h1


Financial

02/04/2019

Applicant’s past delinquent debts that include student loans, credit card debt, medical bills and other miscellaneous debt have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence in mitigation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01661.h1


Financial

02/04/2019

Applicant had not filed his Federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2009 through 2014 as of November 2018. Tax debts and some collection debts have not been paid. Several circumstances outside of his control impacted his finances and diverted his attention, but his failure to comply with his legal tax obligations for six consecutive years casts doubt on his judgment and reliability. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04272.h1


Financial

02/01/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised under financial considerations. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01730.h1


Financial

02/01/2019

Applicant failed to provide any evidence of payments under payment plans with four of her five creditors and provided no evidence with respect to the fifth debt. Accordingly, she failed to mitigate security concerns raised by her financial problems. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01606.h1


Alcohol; Criminal

02/01/2019

Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption and criminal misconduct. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01234.h1


Financial

02/01/2019

Applicant has numerous delinquent debts that are unpaid and unresolved. There was no showing by Applicant of any effort to pay, legitimately dispute, or otherwise resolve any of the financial security concerns. He failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00832.h1


Financial

02/01/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00483.h1


Drugs

02/01/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his drug involvement, Applicant has not stopped using marijuana long enough to establish a pattern of abstinence. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00181.h1


Financial

02/01/2019

Applicant’s financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond her control, and she has been acting responsibly to resolve them. I conclude she has mitigated the security concern. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-01731.h1


Psychological Conditions; Drugs, Alcohol; Personal Conduct

02/01/2019

Applicant was evaluated by a duly-qualified clinical psychologist in September 2017 and found to be at significant risk of relapse of depressive symptoms and alcohol abuse. He continues to drink alcohol against clinical advice. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 14-05891.h1


Financial

01/31/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01836.h1


Financial

01/31/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial security concerns arising from unpaid delinquent debts and taxes. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01358.h1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

01/31/2019

Applicant is a 35-year-old individual with a history of criminal conduct and personal conduct incidents. In 2003, he was disciplined for disrespect toward a superior petty officer. Between 2007 and 2017, Applicant established a lengthy pattern of criminality involving repeated traffic-related violations for which he was charged, convicted, and fined. He was convicted on two occasions of driving while intoxicated (DWI). His repeated failures to timely complete alcohol safety action program (ASAP) resulted in three incidents where he was required to show cause on charges of ASAP non-comply and one charge of contempt of court. His most recent violation was for operating a vehicle on a suspended license. Applicant was discharged from the U.S. Navy, and he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions – a level lower than honorable. His operator’s license is still suspended. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01148.h1


Financial

01/31/2019

Applicant has a history of failing to file Federal and state income tax returns and failing to pay Federal taxes. He did not mitigate the resulting financial security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00307.h1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

01/31/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns and the foreign preference concerns were not established. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00148.h1


Sexual Behavior; Criminal Conduct; and Personal Conduct

01/31/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the above three guidelines. She was convicted in 2017 for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and indecent exposure. She falsified the relevant information to her employer and twice during investigative interviews in 2017. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03916.h1


Foreign Influence

01/31/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence, due largely to his long service with U.S. forces overseas. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03650.h1


Foreign Influence

01/31/2019

Applicant entered the United States in 2008. He married a naturalized U.S. citizen and has two children born in the United States. He became a U.S. citizen in 2012. He earned a favorable reputation as having a strong work ethic and is vigilant about the protection of computer networks. He has mitigated the security concerns related to foreign influence. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03303.h1


Foreign Influence

01/31/2019

Applicant has been married since March 2011 to a native of the Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) who became naturalized in the United States in June 2018. His spouse no longer owns any property in the foreign country, and her daughter, a Kyrgyz citizen, has U.S. permanent residency. However, foreign influence security concerns are not fully mitigated because of his spouse’s family ties to Kyrgyzstan, including a sibling who spent his career with the Kyrgyz government. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 16-03863.h1


Financial

01/30/2019

Applicant is a 41-year-old employee of a defense contractor, serving as a senior administrative logistics analyst since October 2015. Because of a layoff, he was unemployed from October 2012 until June 2013. Applicant had 15 delinquent accounts that had been placed for collection or charged off, totaling $173,797. In August 2015, in an apparent tactical effort to save his residence from foreclosure, Applicant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13. The bankruptcy trustee paid off Applicant’s state tax debt and a portion of his federal tax debt. Once the fear of foreclosure disappeared, Applicant cancelled the bankruptcy in April 2017. Since the bankruptcy was dismissed nearly two years ago, Applicant has made no efforts to resolve his remaining delinquent debts. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01928.h1


Foreign Influence

01/30/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence trustworthiness concerns raised by her family members and financial interests in India. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02888.h1


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct

01/30/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his sexual behavior and personal conduct. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 17-02785.h1


Financial

01/30/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 15-03696.h1


Financial

01/29/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns alleged in the SOR including delinquent mortgage payments and medical debts. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01715.h1


Financial

01/29/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns related to his unresolved delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01180.h1


Financial

01/29/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his delinquent accounts. Access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01142.h1


Financial Considerations; Personal Conduct

01/29/2019

Applicant has an unpaid judgment and six delinquent accounts. The obligations remain unpaid. He provided no documentation showing any efforts to address the past-due debts. He provided false answers on his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing. He failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations and Guideline E, personal conduct. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00707.h1


Financial

01/29/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his $19,000 in unpaid federal taxes and $3,300 in delinquent consumer debt. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04163.h1


Financial

01/28/2019

Applicant’s history of excessive indebtedness brought on by spending beyond his means, has not been resolved. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01999.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

01/28/2019

Applicant’s history of illegal drug usage involving marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01946.h1


Financial Considerations; Personal Conduct

01/28/2019

Applicant’s history of excessive delinquent indebtedness, and his deliberate failure to list his numerous debts in response to questions on his security clearance application, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform or rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01538.h1


Financial

01/28/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised under financial considerations. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01501.h1


Financial

01/28/2019

Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate the security concern stemming from her two delinquent student loans and four delinquent consumer debts. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 18-01486.h1


Financial

01/28/2019

Applicant’s past delinquent debts that include Federal and state tax liens, credit card debt and miscellaneous debt have been mitigated by sufficient evidence in mitigation. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01350.h1


Financial

01/28/2019

Applicant’s failure to file her Federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, shows poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01254.h1


Financial

01/28/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent debts, including child support, student loans, and a medical debt. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00593.h1


Criminal; Alcohol Consumption

01/28/2019

Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse involving three arrests for DUI, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00278.h1


Criminal; Personal Conduct

01/28/2019

Applicant mitigated criminal conduct security concerns. However, Applicant did not mitigate personal conduct security concerns arising from a 2014 employment termination for sexual harassment. He did not acknowledge wrongdoing, and did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his behavior is unlikely to recur. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04015.h1


Alcohol; Personal Conduct

01/28/2019

Applicant mitigated the alcohol consumption and personal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-01762.h1


Foreign Influence

01/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01821.h1


Financial

01/25/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00652.h1


Misconduct or Negligence in Employment Concerns; Material, Intentional False Statement, Deception, or Fraud

01/25/2019

Misconduct or negligence in employment concerns are mitigated because Applicant’s rule violations did not pose an unacceptable risk to people, property, or information systems. Material, intentional false statement, deception, or fraud in connection with federal or contract employment concerns are not mitigated because Applicant’s intentional false statements pose an unacceptable risk to people, property, or information systems. Common access card (CAC) credentialing eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 17-04072.h2


Foreign Influence; Personal Conduct

01/25/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns generated by his contacts and financial interests in the Philippines. The romantic relationship that he had with a Thai woman several years ago when he was working in Estonia generates no security concern. As for security concerns under the personal conduct guideline, Applicant did not falsify his 2012 security clearance application, and his acquaintances who are Filipino natives and residents do not generate personal conduct security concerns. In sum, Applicant has mitigated all of the security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 15-01624.h1


Financial

01/24/2019

Applicant mitigated the trustworthiness concerns alleged in the SOR. Applicant’s eligibility for a position of public trust is granted. CASE NO: 18-01752.h1


Mental, Personal Conduct

01/24/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline I, psychological conditions and Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01540.h1


Financial

01/24/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00987.h1


Financial

01/24/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00776.h1


Financial

01/24/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00559.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

01/24/2019

Security concerns were raised under drug involvement and personal conduct when Applicant used marijuana in 2014 and 2016 after being granted a security clearance in 2008. He used marijuana in a state that legalized marijuana, but marijuana use remains illegal under federal statute. Security concerns were mitigated because Applicant was forthcoming about the marijuana use, stopped using marijuana more than three years ago, and signed a statement declaring his intent to not use marijuana in the future. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00158.h1


Financial

01/24/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns including student loans. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 17-02048.h1


Financial; Foreign Influence

01/24/2019

While Applicant’s Philippine relatives do not pose a threat to national security, his considerable past-due debt does. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-01576.h1


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct; Financial

01/24/2019

Applicant is a 38-year-old individual with a history of criminal conduct and personal conduct incidents taking place starting in 2006 and continuing through 2014. In fact, although he has not been caught by the police authorities since 2014, Applicant continues to show an unwillingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations, for he routinely ignores the law when he consistently drives a vehicle without a license, when it has been suspended or revoked, without insurance, or with an expired or switched tag. Although he has been convicted of numerous traffic-related violations and fined and assessed court fees, he has generally ignored those fines and fees to the extent that he has twice been charged with contempt of court. Judgments have been satisfied only through garnishments of his wages, not by mutually-agreed repayment plans. Although Applicant claimed to have taken certain positive actions to address his creditors and delinquent accounts, he failed to submit requested documentation to support his various claims and contentions. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 16-02978.h1


Financial

01/23/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01341.h1


Financial Considerations

01/23/2019

Applicant owes $105,258 on six delinquent accounts. The obligations remain unpaid. He provided no documentation showing any efforts to address the debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01151.h1


Financial

01/23/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00096.h1


Drugs

01/23/2019

Applicant mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00041.h1


Financial

01/23/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02617.h1


Foreign Influence

01/22/2019

Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated foreign influence concerns raised by his family in Sudan. His request for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00336.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

01/22/2019

Applicant has raised some due process issues. He notes that the Judge applied adjudicative guidelines that were effective as of June 8, 2017, after the date of his SOR. He argues that the Judge should have applied the guidelines in effect on the date of his SOR. However, as Department Counsel states in his Reply Brief, the DoD has implemented Security Executive Agent Directive 4, mandating that all adjudications will utilize the new guidelines. This requirement applies without regard to the date of an SOR. Applicant received notice of this along with copies of the appropriate guidelines. Applicant also contends that DOHA unduly delayed convening his hearing until after his 2017 taxes were due, thereby prompting the Judge to inquire into their status to his detriment. However, it was Applicant himself who broached his 2016 and 2017 tax filings. In any event, we find no reason to believe that if these subsequent tax years had not been considered the Judge would have arrived at a different decision. There is no reason to conclude that the timing of the hearing prejudiced Applicant’s ability to present his case for mitigation. Accordingly, we have no authority to comment on the manner in which officials have processed Applicant’s case. Applicant was not denied due process. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-01193.a1


Guideline F

01/18/2019

Applicant contends that the Judge erred in admitting four credit reports over his objection. He argues that the Government failed to provide evidence attesting to the authenticity of these documents. We examine a Judge’s evidentiary rulings to determine if they are consistent with the Directive and if they are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Credit reports are generally admissible as part of the Government’s case in chief. ISCR Case No. 07-08925 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2018) has an in-depth discussion of the admissibility of credit reports in DOHA proceedings. A credit report qualifies as a record compiled or created in the regular course of business and, therefore, is admissible without an authenticating witness. Directive ¶ E3.1.20. There is nothing on the face of the challenged documents to suggest that they are other than what they purport to be, and, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, their meaning can reasonably be ascertained. The Judge’s decision to admit Applicant’s credit reports was consistent with the Directive and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00552.a1


Financial

01/18/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. He has unresolved delinquent debt and delinquent Federal tax debt. He failed to timely file Federal and state income tax returns from 2007 to 2016 until recently. He did not present sufficient information for purposes of mitigation at this time. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03313.h1


Guideline F

01/18/2019

Even if debts have been resolved a Judge may still consider the underlying circumstances for what they may reveal about the applicant’s judgment and reliability. The government need not wait until an individual mishandles or fails to safeguard classified information before it can make an unfavorable security clearance decision. Even those with good prior records can encounter circumstances in which their judgment and reliability might be compromised. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02599.a1


Financial

01/17/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00144.h1


Foreign Influence

01/17/2019

Applicant has little connection with his Afghan relatives, who are unaware of what he does to support the U.S. effort there. Furthermore, Applicant’s foreign connections, his three sisters, brother, and brother-in-law, are clearly outweighed by his continued service and loyalty to the United States. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03560.h1


Financial

01/17/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns including delinquent federal and state taxes. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03370.h1


Financial

01/17/2019

Applicant has filed her Federal and state income taxes. She is also adhering to scheduled installment payments to the IRS. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-02387.h1


Criminal Conduct; Alcohol Consumption; Financial; Personal Conduct

01/17/2019

Applicant is a self-proclaimed alcoholic, and a justice-involved individual whose history of criminal conduct took place with one incident of criminality in 1991, and another seven incidents over a period 14 years, commencing in 2001 and continuing until 2015. His finances are in disarray, with one bankruptcy under Chapter 13 discharged in 2007; and a renewed history of delinquent accounts that still remain unaddressed by him, despite a combined annual income of approximately $200,000. Although he claimed to have taken certain positive actions to address his creditors and delinquent accounts; and attended certain programs associated with his consumption of alcohol; Applicant failed to submit requested documentation to support his various claims and contentions. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility to occupy a position of public trust is denied. CASE NO: 17-02366.h1


Financial

01/17/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his over $35,000 delinquent debts, which were due to his deliberate disregard for his financial obligations, and which were addressed only after he received the SOR. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 16-03957.h1


Financial

01/17/2019

Applicant failed to file his federal and state tax returns for multiple years and accumulated major federal and state tax liens, as well as other delinquent debts, that have not been resolved. Financial concerns over his accumulation of delinquent debts are not mitigated. Eligibility to hold a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 16-03600.h1


Financial

01/16/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations. He failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish mitigation with respect to his delinquent consumer debt. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01213.h1


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

01/16/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations. He failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish mitigation with respect to his consumer debts and failure to file Federal tax returns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01884.h1


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

01/16/2019

Applicant mitigated the personal conduct and the criminal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00989.h1


Financial

01/16/2019

Applicant mitigated the alleged financial trustworthiness concerns. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for a position of trust is granted. CASE NO: 18-00160.h1


Financial

01/16/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate financial security concerns over her delinquent debts, including past-due state and federal income taxes, student loans, and other debts. Applicant’s eligibility for continued access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03843.h1


Guideline B; Guideline C

01/16/2019

While it is important for the Judge to consider the foreign country in which the foreign contact is located in Guideline B cases, the “heightened risk” language in Disqualifying Condition 7(a) addresses an applicant’s foreign contacts, not necessarily the foreign country involved. Depending upon the particular circumstances presented in a case, one or more foreign contacts located in even a foreign country that is friendly to the United States may create a “heightened risk” of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. In the past, we noted with approval a Judge’s analysis that concluded “heightened risk” is not a high standard to meet. In the present case, Applicant graduated from a British military academy, held a British security clearance, and retired as a British military officer. Favorable decision remanded. CASE NO: 17-03026.a1


Alcohol; Personal Conduct

01/16/2019

Applicant was arrested and convicted of four alcohol-related incidents over a 32-year period. He has since completed treatment and continues to practice abstinence with the support of Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcohol concerns are mitigated. Additional security concerns raised over Applicant's positive drug test in 2004 are mitigated, too, by the passage of time and avoidance of any recurrent use of illegal drugs. CASE NO: 17-02680.h1


Sexual Behavior; Handling Protected Information; Personal Conduct

01/16/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to mitigate the sexual behavior, handling protected information, and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-01741.h1


Financial

01/15/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations. He failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish mitigation with respect to his delinquent debt. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01744.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/15/2019

Applicant did not file federal tax returns for 2011 through 2016 until late 2017 or 2018, and he still owes the IRS an indeterminate amount for those tax years. He did not intentionally provide false information on a 2017 Questionnaire for National Security Positions. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01246.h1


Drug Involvement

01/15/2019

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline H, involving Applicant’s history of marijuana use. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00681.h1


Guideline E; Guideline H

01/15/2019

An applicant’s misuse of drugs after having been placed on notice of the incompatibility of drug abuse with clearance eligibility raises questions about his or her judgment and reliability. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04198.a1


Foreign Influence

01/15/2019

Based on a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, I conclude that Applicant has mitigated foreign influence concerns raised by his grandmother, who is a citizen of and resident in Iran; as well as the concerns raised by his mother, who is a dual citizen of the United States and Iran and travels to Iran to care for Applicant’s grandmother. His request for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-04151.h1


Financial

01/15/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent debts and failing to file Federal and state tax returns when due. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-00283.h1


Alcohol

01/14/2019

Applicant had four alcohol-related arrests in in 1995, 2007, 2016, and 2017, and these incidents recurred after alcohol treatment and counseling. Concerns about Applicant’s irresponsible alcohol use and drunk-driving convictions are not mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01325.h1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

01/11/2019

Applicant’s extensive history of criminal conduct and poor personal conduct involving six felony convictions, resulting in five years in prison and three years on parole, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence in mitigation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01481.h1


Financial

01/11/2019

Applicant’s delinquent debts totaling approximately $39,000, resulting from a two year period of unemployment, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01241.h1


Financial

01/11/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations. He failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish mitigation with respect to his student loan debts and delinquent federal taxes. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00517.h1


Alcohol Consumption; Personal Conduct

01/11/2019

Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse, evidenced by three DUI convictions and his deliberate intent to falsify his security clearance application concerning his police record and work history, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04355.h1


Guideline E; Guideline H

01/11/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegations of error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04019.a1


Guideline F

01/11/2019

In 2010, the IRS audited Applicant for 2006 and 2007 and found he and his wife owed $129,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest. He attributed this debt to his wife’s business and a tax preparer’s errors. He failed to file his 2010-2015 Federal tax returns in a timely manner. Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence, misweighed the evidence, and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. For example, he highlights that he has filed his tax returns for 2010-2015, timely filed his tax returns for 2016 and 2017, and established a payment plan for his tax debt through his Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Judge, however, made finding about those matters and discussed them in her analysis. Applicant’s arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02583.a1


Guideline F

01/11/2019

Applicant’s appeal brief also claims there are two errors in the hearing transcript. Specifically, she claims the transcript incorrectly reflects the acronym of the entity from which she received credit counseling and incorrectly reflects the year in which she started that counseling. Because she stated that she was responsible for the mistake pertaining to the acronym, no relief for that error is warranted on appeal. The other claimed error regarding the start-date of the counseling fails for lack of specificity because Applicant fails to indicate whether she or the court reporter was responsible for that mistake. However, even if the court reporter was responsible for that error, it is a harmless error because it likely did not affect the outcome of the case. In this regard, we note the Judge based her decision primarily on Applicant’s failure to act responsibly in addressing the credit card debt. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-02350.a1


CAC

01/11/2019

Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that she deliberately omitted material information from her Form 306. However, the Judge’s finding is a reasonable inference from the evidence. The Judge’s material findings are supported by substantial evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-01990.a2


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

01/10/2019

Applicant has two alcohol-related driving offenses, and he remains on probation until May 2019. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01532.h1


Financial

01/10/2019

Applicant owes approximately $241,503 in defaulted Federal student-loan debt, charged-off credit-card debts totaling more than $5,000, and some collection debts. Unemployment and low income were factors in the delinquencies, but more progress is needed toward resolving his debts to find that his financial problems are safely behind him. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00762.h1


Financial Considerations

01/10/2019

A fair and commonsense assessment of the record evidence as a whole shows the security concerns raised by a tax lien recently entered against Applicant are mitigated. His request for continued security clearance eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-00618.h1


Financial Considerations; Criminal Conduct

01/10/2019

Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns about his numerous unpaid debts, and about an arrest in February 2016. His request for continued security clearance eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 18-00333.h1


CAC

01/10/2019

In analyzing the concerns in Applicant’s case, the Judge applied the wrong standard. In both the Policies and Conclusion sections of the Decision, the Judge cited to the “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard required for security clearance determinations. The Policies section also contains the following language: “In all adjudications, the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. Therefore, any doubt concerning personnel being considered for CAC eligibility should be resolved in favor of national interest.” In a CAC case, however, the appropriate standard is whether the applicant’s conduct poses an “unacceptable risk.” The application of the wrong standard raises due process concerns and warrants corrective action. Given these circumstances, the best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge for correction of the identified error and issuance of a new decision consistent with the requirements of the Instruction. Adverse decision remanded. CASE NO: 17-04072.a1


Financial

01/10/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent debts and failing to file Federal tax returns when due. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03642.h1


Financial

01/10/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-03281.h1


Guideline F

01/10/2019

Applicant also contends the Judge incorrectly analyzed the evidence. She argues the Judge concluded “the record fails to establish that her debts are being resolved or under control . . . [and] does not show a good-faith effort by Applicant to repay overdue creditors” despite evidence that she has “more than a two-year track record of regular payments.” The above quotes, however, are unrelated. By contrasting them, Applicant has taken them out of their context. The Judge’s quote pertaining to the “two-year track record of regular payments” addressed Applicant’s effort to resolve the car loan. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the car loan. The other quote pertaining to Applicant’s failure to establish that the “debts are being resolved or are under control” addressed the other debts for which the Judge concluded insufficient corroborating documentation was presented. Applicant’s contention does not establish any error in the Judge’s analysis. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-00302.a1


Guideline M

01/10/2019

Applicant raises two issues related to Government Exhibit (GE) 3, a Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) Incident History. First, Applicant contends the Judge erred in the Decision by stating that he did not object to GE 3. The transcript supports his contention that he objected to the relevance of that exhibit at the hearing. The Judge overruled his objection and admitted GE 3 into evidence. Besides entries addressing Applicant’s alleged misconduct, GE 3 also has entries indicating that his SCI access was suspended in 2009 and later revoked. He argues the information about his 2009 SCI access suspension and revocation was irrelevant. We do not find his argument persuasive. The JPAS Incident History is a Federal Government record that contains relevant information about an applicant’s security clearance eligibility. We conclude the Judge committed no error in admitting the JPAS Incident History into evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-01906.a1


Financial

01/09/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his repeated failures to timely file federal and state income tax returns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00635.h1


Financial

01/09/2019

Applicant failed to maintain several accounts in a current status and a number of them became delinquent. Accounts, totaling $71,303, were placed for collection or charged-off, a house went into a foreclosure status, and a state tax lien was filed. Rather than simply ignoring his creditors, Applicant reached out to them, either directly or through a debt resolution company, and discussed settlement or repayment possibilities. He entered into repayment agreements with some creditors; paid off, or otherwise resolved, other accounts; or is in the process of resolving all of his remaining debts. His house is no longer in a foreclosure status. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility to occupy a position of public trust is granted. CASE NO: 18-00628.h1


Guideline F

01/09/2019

Applicant asks for an opportunity to submit additional documentary evidence regarding debt resolution and the whole person factors. We construe her argument to be that she was not aware that she should present documentary evidence on these things. We cannot receive new evidence on appeal. Neither do we have authority to remand a case to the Judge simply to take in additional evidence. DOHA provided Applicant with adequate notice of her right to submit evidence. Applicant’s failure to have provided evidence sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised in her SOR cannot fairly be attributed to the quality of guidance that DOHA provided her. To the extent that Applicant is contending that she was denied due process, we resolve this issue adversely to her. Although pro se applicants cannot be expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely, reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-04301.a1


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

01/09/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate Guideline G security concerns, which include a 2014 diagnosis of alcohol dependence, and evidence of subsequent and ongoing alcohol consumption, despite a recommendation to abstain from alcohol. Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline J, criminal conduct, because he did not provide sufficient evidence that his alcohol-related offenses are unlikely to recur. Eligibility for continued access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-02300.h1


Foreign Influence

01/09/2019

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-01673.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/08/2019

Applicant mitigated the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position is granted. CASE NO: 18-01690.h1


Financial

01/08/2019

Applicant has a history of financial problems, including unfiled income tax returns and unpaid taxes. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00360.h1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

01/08/2019

Applicant mitigated foreign influence and foreign preference security concerns relating to his connections to Iraq. His father and sister live in Kurdistan, a region of Iraq. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 16-01164.h1


Guideline F

01/07/2019

To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence, we conclude that Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00817.a1


Financial

01/07/2019

Applicant has numerous delinquent debts that are unpaid and unresolved. He claimed that the majority of these debts were due to identity theft. There was no showing by Applicant of any effort to pay, legitimately dispute, or otherwise resolve any of the financial security concerns. He failed to mitigate Guideline F, financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00793.h1


Financial

01/07/2019

Applicant’s financial problems were generated by circumstances beyond her control. Over the past 18 months, she has rehabilitated her finances either by paying debts in their entirety, paying them incrementally through payment plans, or successfully disputing them. I conclude she has mitigated the security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03402.h1


Drugs

01/04/2019

Applicant used marijuana from January 2010 to at least November 2018, since July 2018 with a state-issued medical marijuana card. He is not committed to abstention despite knowing that marijuana remains illegal under Federal law. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01541.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/04/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01480.h1


Financial

01/04/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01206.h1


Financial

01/04/2019

Applicant did not present sufficient information to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the trustworthiness concern stemming from his problematic financial history. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 18-01096.h1


Sexual Behavior; Use of Information Technology

01/04/2019

Applicant violated company policy when he viewed and stored pornography on his company computer from about 2002 until September 2017. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00659.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

01/04/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate financial security concerns about her unfiled tax returns, unpaid past-due federal taxes, and other delinquent debts. Personal conduct security concerns are not established. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-04106.h1


Financial

01/04/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 17-03763.h2


Financial

01/04/2019

Applicant failed to maintain several accounts in a current status and a number of them became delinquent. Accounts were placed for collection or charged-off, and in one instance, a judgment was filed. Those debts total approximately $34,302. Rather than simply ignoring her creditors, Applicant reached out to them and discussed settlement or repayment possibilities. She paid off her non-SOR debts as well as some SOR debts, and entered into repayment agreements with other creditors. She has continued to make her regular anticipated payments under those agreements. Applicant’s actions under the circumstances no longer cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility to occupy a position of public trust is granted. CASE NO: 17-03453.h1


Financial

01/04/2019

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 17-02626.h1


Financial

01/04/2019

Applicant owes more than $32,000 in delinquent Federal and state income tax debt, and recently filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to “manage” the surrender of his home in lieu of foreclosure. He offered insufficient evidence of efforts or means to resolve his remaining delinquencies, or to demonstrate rehabilitation. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. National security eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 17-01805.h1


Psychological Conditions

01/04/2019

Applicant has not mitigated the concerns related to his psychological conditions. His request for national security eligibility and a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 15-02352.h1


Financial Considerations

01/03/2019

A fair and commonsense assessment of the record evidence as a whole shows the security concerns raised by Applicant’s financial problems are mitigated. His request for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-00597.h1


Financial

01/02/2019

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-01145.h1


Financial Considerations

01/02/2019

Applicant did not provide sufficient information in response to the Government’s case to overcome the security concerns raised by his financial problems. Applicant’s request for eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00270.h1


Financial

01/02/2019

Applicant did not mitigate the concerns raised under financial considerations because of her failure to provide sufficient proof that her state and federal tax debts were being resolved. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-04293.h1


Foreign Influence

01/02/2019

Applicant worked under dangerous conditions as a linguist with the U.S. military in Iraq. He mitigated security concerns raised by his family members who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03726.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

01/02/2019

Applicant does not explain why she answered “No” to the question asking whether she had any property voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed in the last seven years when her vehicle was voluntarily repossessed less than three years earlier. Second, she is again arguing facts not in evidence, which we cannot consider and do not establish that the Judge erred in her decision. From our review of the record, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant intentionally falsified her SCA is supported by substantial record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03638.a1


Personal Conduct

01/02/2019

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-03629.h1


Financial

01/02/2019

Applicant has a history of financial problems, including a debt of more than $780,000 in back taxes. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 17-03025.h1


Foreign Influence

01/02/2019

Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to mitigate the foreign influence security concerns raised by his and his family members’ contacts with their Taiwanese relatives. Access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-02892.h1


« Return to DOHA Home Page
Other years: 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Last updated 11 Feb 2017