Small DOHA Seal

2020 Industrial Security Clearance Decisions

 

These 429 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 2020

Guideline G; Guideline J

09/30/2020

Applicant states that he regrets choosing to have his case decided on the written record and requests his case be remanded for a hearing. Absent a showing of factual or legal error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceeding below, a party does not have the right to have a second chance at presenting his or her case before an administrative judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-03083.a1


Guideline F; Guideline E

09/30/2020

Applicant states that he did not believe that he was allowed to submit letters of recommendation. The cover letter that accompanied the FORM advised that, before the Judge considered the record, Applicant would have "an opportunity to review [the FORM], make any objections, submit any additional material [he] would like the Administrative Judge to consider." DOHA Letter, dated March 3, 2020. We conclude that there is nothing in the material that DOHA sent to Applicant that was misleading concerning his right to respond to the FORM.Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02763.a1


Guideline J; Guideline G; Guideline E

09/30/2020

We gave due consideration to the Hearing Office cases that Applicant has cited in support of his arguments, but they are neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. Id. At 3-4. The cited cases are easily distinguishable from the present case. Moreover, the Appeal Board recently reversed one of the three Hearing Office cases that Applicant cited in support of his arguments. We further conclude the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in compliance with the whole-person analysis requirements. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01495.a1


Guideline F

09/30/2020

Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he provided no proof of making $800 in payments towards an unresolved credit union debt. The SOR alleged the balance owed on that debt was about $4,400. At the hearing, Applicant provided a statement from a collection agency showing the debt’s balance was about $3,600 as of the end of 2019. Applicant’s Exhibit E. Although the Judge erred in finding the record contained no evidence of the $800 in payments on that debt, it was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00262.a1


Guideline I; Guideline E; Guideline K

09/14/2020

The Judge noted that Applicant has a history of unreliable and inappropriate workplace behavior. He has committed security violations. A psychologist determined he has mental health conditions that are not fully under control. Applicant has failed to establish his questionable conduct is unlikely to recur. His psychological conditions that cast doubt on his reliability,trustworthiness, and good judgment are resolved. Applicant cites no authority supporting his contention that the Judge could order another agency to produce such a report. We find no error in the Judge;s ruling. Directive ¶ E3.1.11 provides that an applicant's discovery "is limited to non-privileged documents and material subject to control by the DOHA." A DOHA Judge lacks jurisdiction over another Government agency. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02384.a1


Guideline F

09/09/2020

In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge erred in finding he lost a job in 2018 by pointing out that he lost it in 2015. A review of the evidence confirms that Applicant lost his job in 2015, vice 2018. This error, however, was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. We note the Judge's mitigation analysis focused on the failure of Applicant to establish that he has taken any steps to satisfy his financial delinquencies or seek professional assistance to develop a debt resolution plan. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02934.a1


Guideline B

09/09/2020

Although the Judge erred in making those challenged findings of fact, such errors were harmless. The evidence supports the Judge's conclusion that Applicant has made "some extraordinary moves" in returning to Israel over the past 40 years. Decision at 7. Since becoming a U.S. citizen, Applicant has returned to Israel on three occasions to reside there for a number of years, which includes stints when he served in the Israeli military and worked for the Israeli Government. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02305.a1


Guideline F

09/09/20

Given these circumstances, we conclude the best solution is to remand the case. TheJudge is instructed to reopen the record and, working with the parties, determine whetherApplicant submitted a FORM Response before the case was submitted to him. If Applicant made such an submission, the Judge should provide Department Counsel an opportunity to object to the submission and then rule on any objections. The Judge should issue a new decision in accordance with Directive ¶ E3.1.35. The Decision is Remanded. CASE NO: 19-02119.a1


Guideline F; Guideline E

09/09/2020

Appeal Board does not have supervisory authority over other DOHA personnel involved in processing security clearances. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01846.a1


Guideline F

08/31/2020

The Judge did not err in his comments regarding not having had an opportunity to evaluate Applicant's demeanor. From our review of the record, there is no reason to conclude the Judge's decision to deny Applicant national security eligibility was based in any degree on him not requesting a hearing. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02544.a1


Guideline F

08/26/2020

Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he only had one minor child. His personal subject interview reflects that he has two minor children. This error, however, was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02852.a1


Guideline M; Guideline E

08/26/2020

In his appeal brief, Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of theJudge. Rather, he apologizes for what he has done, accepts responsibility for his misconduct, and asks for a second chance to show he is worthy of the Government's trust. He also asks that he may be given "the benefit of the doubt." Appeal Brief at 3. However, "[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security." Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01084.a1


Guideline E, Guideline J

08/26/2020

Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge's specific findings of fact. Instead, she contends the Judge did not consider her whole-person evidence and challenges some of his conclusions. Specifically, for example, she disputes his conclusions that he did not believe she was not trying to hide anything by failing to perform the audit and did not believe her personal use of the corporate credit card was sanctioned by the corporate president. In this regard, it should be noted that the Appeal Board gives deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations.Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00656.a1


Guideline B

08/12/2020

Applicant's contact with a high-level Russian Government official is a sufficient basis for concluding the security concerns arising from that contact are not mitigated. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02177.a1


Guideline B

08/12/2020

Applicant's arguments are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01046.a1


Guideline F

08/10/2020

The impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating national security eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02861.a1


Guideline B

08/10/2020

The Appeal Board has recognized that an applicant's ties, either directly or through a family member, to persons of high rank in a foreign government or military are of particular concern, insofar as it is foreseeable that through an association with such persons the applicant could come to the attention of those interested in acquiring U.S. protected information. The decision is reversed. CASE NO: 19-01688.a1


Guideline G, Guideline J

08/10/2020

The length of time through which an applicant might establish that his or her offenses have been consigned to the past varies from case to case. The decision is reversed. CASE NO: 19-00381.a1


Guideline F

08/03/2020

Applicant asserts that loss of her security clearance has had a negative impact on her and her family. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02208.a1


Guideline F

08/03/2020

In his appeal brief, Applicant states he is challenging the Judge's findings of fact but does not identify any specific finding that he is disputing. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01973.a1


Guideline F; Guideline E

08/03/2020

Applicant cites to various pieces of record evidence which, he contends, the Judge did not consider or that he mis-weighed, including his period of homelessness, his unemployment,his care for his father, his tentative payment plan, etc. The Judge made findings about the things that Applicant has mentioned and explicitly addressed at least some of them in his Analysis. A Judge is not expected to address every piece of evidence in the record, which would be a virtual impossibility. Applicant's arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01560.a1


Guideline B

07/29/2020

In Foreign Influence cases, the nature of the foreign government involved, the presence of terrorist activity, and the intelligence gathering history of that government are important considerations that provide context for the other record evidence and must be brought to bear on the Judge's ultimate conclusions in the case. The country;s human rights record is also an important consideration. There is a rational connection between an applicant's family ties in a hostile country and the risk that the applicant might fail to protect and safeguard classified information. Whether or not actively hostile actions, such as military conflict, have broken out or are imminent, any country whose policies consistently threaten U.S. national security may be viewed as hostile for purpose of DOHA adjudications. The Supreme Court has explicitly cited family members in a hostile country as a reason to deny an applicant a security clearance. Accordingly, we have long held that such applicants have a "very heavy burden" of persuasion to show that connections in a hostile country do not pose a threat to U.S. security. The Decision is Reversed. CASE NO: 19-00831.a1


Guideline B; Guideline E

07/20/2020

Applicant has five siblings, who reside in the U.S. and are naturalized U.S. citizens. One of the siblings has been incarcerated in a U.S. prison since 2005. In SCAs completed in2013, 2014, and 2015, Applicant failed to list this sibling in the section inquiring about his relatives. During subject interviews in 2011 and 2016, Applicant did not disclose the sibling in question. During his 2016 interview, the investigator asked him if he had a sibling in prison, andApplicant answered in the negative. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02239.a1


Personal Conduct

07/01/2020

Applicant made multiple deliberately false statements about his background during the security clearance process. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 19-00441.h1


Personal Conduct

07/01/2020

In 2012, Applicant resigned from his job as a teacher at a public high school due to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old female student from another school in an adjacent state. He did not make deliberately false or misleading statements about the nature of his relationship with the minor student when he completed a security clearance application in 2017 or during his background investigation in 2018. The questionable judgment he exercised in 2012 is mitigated as minor misconduct and by the passage of time without recurrence. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 19-00389.h1


Guideline F

07/01/2020

Applicant's current appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it indicates he remains unemployed and will have difficulty finding employment without a security clearance. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01011.a2


Financial

06/30/2020

Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to revoke his eligibility for access to classified information based on defaulted student loans. The evidence is sufficient to partially mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Accordingly, this case is decided for Applicant, albeit on a conditional basis with additional security measures. CASE NO: 19-00906.h1


Guideline F

06/24/2020

Applicant raises issues regarding his background investigation. For example, he asserts that statements he made about his employment status were not noted in the interview summary. He also contends that, if a more thorough background investigation had been conducted, it would have showed his willingness to correct his financial responsibilities. The Appeal Board's jurisdiction, however, is limited to the issues set forth in Directive ¶ E3.1.32. We have no authority over how background investigations are conducted. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02166.a1


Guideline F; Guideline E

06/24/2020

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that GE 7 supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant pled guilty at the nonjudicial punishment proceeding to five offenses,including forgery, fraud, and making a false statement. To the extent that Applicant is contending that the Judge made no mention of the letters of recommendation he submitted at the hearing, this contention is not accurate. The Judge made findings regarding Applicant’s character reference letters. See Decision at 4. Applicant has failed to show the Judge erred in making any findings of fact or in reaching any conclusions regarding the nonjudicial punishment allegation. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01234.a1


Finances

06/23/2020

Applicant failed to timely file federal and state tax returns dating back to about 2004. To date, it is unclear which returns have been since filed. As well, while two state tax burdens were resolved by third parties, Applicant’s federal debt and balance owed to a third state remain unresolved. In addition, she has not showed she has made any progress on a charged off credit card, although she did explain her student loans are now in deferral. More time is needed for Applicant to address the balance of her issues and demonstrate she is in control of her financial and tax situation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00073.h1


Financial

06/23/2020

Applicant and her former husband did not timely file some Federal and state income tax returns between 2004 and 2016. After their divorce, Applicant worked with a CPA to resolve all of her tax issues and her financial situation has stabilized. National security eligibility to occupy a designated sensitive position is granted. CASE NO: 19-00041.h1


Financial

06/18/2020

Although Applicant has resolved three of the six debts alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR), he has failed to demonstrate a track record of debt repayment and that his finances are under control. Clearance is denied. CASE NO. 19-00262.h1


Foreign Influence

06/17/2020

Applicant was unable to mitigate the foreign influence security concerns arising from his connections with family members and associates in Somalia and Kenya. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02179.h1


Guideline F

06/15/2020

The SOR alleged that Applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $24,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. In doing so, the Judge noted Applicant obtained the assistance of a debt relief company (DRC) in late 2019 and began making biweekly payments under the DRC plan. The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02487.a1


Guideline F

06/15/2020

Applicant asserts the Judge was biased against her. She raises two issues regarding bias. First, she contends the Judge demonstrated bias when he admonished her twice to "Tell the truth" and "did not admonish anyone else to tell the truth to the same degree that he admonished the Applicant." Appeal Brief at 3. In this regard, she also argues, "Bias in courtrooms and various judicial settings is a serious problem that affects the ability of African Americans to receive a fair result in a courtroom/hearing room setting." Id. It merits noting the first admonition she cites is the standard advisement given to all applicants and witnesses pursuant to Directive ¶ E3.1.18, and the only other witness to testify at the hearing was her tax advisor. The second cited admonition occurred when Applicant was about to commence her testimony, and repeating the warning at that stage of the proceeding is also customary. In any event, there is no evidence to support the suggestion that race was a consideration in this case. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01513.a1


Financial

06/11/2020

Applicant's Statement of Reasons alleged four delinquent debts totaling $36,985. One of the debts was determined to be a duplicate debt leaving only three debts. Applicant set up payment plans for each of the three remaining debts and submitted documentation of regular monthly payments. He also retained the services of a credit repair company to improve his credit. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01746.h1


Financial

06/11/2020

Applicant's Statement of Reasons alleged four delinquent debts totaling $36,985. One of the debts was determined to be a duplicate debt leaving only three debts. Applicant set up payment plans for each of the three remaining debts and submitted documentation of regular monthly payments. He also retained the services of a credit repair company to improve his credit. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01746.h1


Psychological, Personal Conduct, and Handling Protected Information

06/10/2020

Applicant’s most recent psychological evaluation indicated that his present mental status negatively impacts his judgment and trustworthiness. He has a history of inappropriate personal conduct in the workplace, and an inability to follow rules, deadlines, policies, and procedures. He failed to mitigate psychological conditions, personal conduct, and handling protected information security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02384.h1


Financial, Drugs, Criminal

06/09/2020

Applicant did not establish that his past-due child support or other delinquent debts are being resolved. He did not mitigate his recent and lengthy history of criminal conduct and marijuana use. He did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations), Guideline H (drug involvement), or Guideline J (criminal conduct). Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01112.h1


Alcohol, Personal Conduct

06/09/2020

Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence in September 2013 and August 2017. Since then, however, he has moderated his drinking and no longer drives after consuming alcohol. He has also matured and become more responsible. He has established a healthier lifestyle and is pursuing a master’s degree to further his career. He also submitted strong whole-person evidence in support of his case. 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 involvement, and the cross-alleged personal conduct security concerns. Applicant's eligibility for continued access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01062.h1


Personal, Criminal

06/09/2020

Applicant, an accountant and business manager by training, was terminated for cause in 2014 for failing to complete a company financial audit as required. She was later found to have used a company credit card for personal purposes on numerous occasions, charging several thousand dollars, without authorization and without reimbursing her employer. That conduct later led to criminal charges, which were dismissed after Applicant participated in a pretrial intervention program and paid restitution. Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline J (criminal conduct). Applicant’s eligibility for continued access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00656.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

06/09/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his two-time marijuana after having been granted access to classified information, by ceasing abuse for more than three years, executing the statement of intent contemplated by the Directive, and demonstrating an intent to not abuse marijuana drugs in the future. Record did not support allegation that Applicant falsified his March 2012 clearance application. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 18-02712.h1


Guideline F

06/08/2020

Applicant failed to establish that she was denied due process or that the Judge committed any harmful error. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01759.a1


Guideline B

06/08/2020

Department Counsel argues that the conditions in Afghanistan are hostile to U.S.national security interests and, therefore, Applicant should have a "very heavy burden" placed on him to mitigate the resulting foreign influence security concerns. The record evidence does not describe Afghanistan as a hostile country. Department Counsel cites no prior Appeal Board decision in which we concluded Afghanistan was a hostile country. Her arguments for application of the "very heavy burden" mitigation standard are based on conditions in that country – such as terrorism, unrest, and instability – as opposed to any actions taken by theAfghan Government. Department Counsel has failed show that the Afghan Government's interests are adverse to U.S. interests or that it has established policies or taken actions that threaten U.S. national security. She has not cited any evidence showing that Afghanistan is involved in any form of espionage against the United States. To the contrary, DepartmentCounsel notes in her appeal brief that Afghanistan has had a democratic government since 2004. Favorable decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01689.a1


Guideline F, Guideline E

06/03/2020

Applicant alleges the Judge erred regarding her finding that "Applicant claims to have resolved the judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b ($749). Although she provides copies of two money orders receipts showing $400 payments, the receipts do not establish the payee." Decision at 4. The Judge's findings are a fair description of the copies of the money order in the record.Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01588.a1


Guideline G; Guideline J

06/03/2020

In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact. Instead, he contends the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, mis-weighed the evidence,and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. The Judge discussed the matters that Applicant is raising on appeal. His arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious,or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01400.a1


Guideline F

06/03/2020

Although Applicant stated in her Response that she objected to the FORM itself, it is clear that she was lodging an objection to the interview summary. Moreover, she specifically mentioned the investigator, who prepared the interview summary, in presenting her argument on appeal. Although the Judge may well have misunderstood Applicant’s objection, given its wording, we conclude that he erred by admitting and considering the summary. We conclude that the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge. Adverse decision is remanded. CASE NO: 18-02847.a1


Guideline F

06/03/2020

Applicant submitted an e-mail from his company’s security specialist. The e-mail appears to contain some confusion. It asserts that because Applicant did not reply to DOHA correspondence from January 2019, he was denied a clearance in February 2020. He denies having received the correspondence. In fact the cited correspondence predates the SOR and hearing. It was not referred to in the SOR, nor in the Judge’s decision, both of which were about financial issues including, tax problems, bankruptcy and gambling. Applicant has not demonstrated that he was denied due process. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02822.a1


Guideline F

06/01/2020

It is well established that a Judge may consider unfavorable non-alleged matters for certain limited purposes, such as (a) in assessing an applicant’s credibility; (b) in evaluating an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances; (c) in considering whether the applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; and (d) in applying the whole-person concept. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01220.a1


Guideline F

06/01/2020

Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains documents that were already included in the record and proposals for prospective actions by the Applicant in part relying on documentation he himself has not received. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01542.a1


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

05/28/2020

Applicant had an alcohol-related arrest in 2018. After his conviction, a bench warrant was issued for failure to appear at a subsequent hearing. Applicant also falsified a Government security questionnaire on the same topic. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02685.h1


Guideline F

05/27/2020

There is a threshold issue of an apparent defect in the record. The File of Relevant Material, at Item 3, contains Applicant's answer to the SOR. At the bottom of the page in the center, the pages are numbered, as follows: 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,1,5,16. Pages 4 and 6are missing. Additionally, page 5 says at the bottom, "Continued on Reverse Side." Nothing is on the back and, as noted page 6 is missing. The decision is remanded. CASE NO: 19-01482.a1


Financial

05/21/2020

Applicant has failed to address any of her admitted past-due debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02366.h1


Financial

05/21/2020

Applicant has failed to address the vast majority of his admitted past-due debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02257.h1


Foreign Influence

05/21/2020

Applicant maintains infrequent, but continuing, contact with two highly placed associates, who work for the Russian government. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02177.h1


Foreign Influence

05/21/2020

Applicant has little contact with his Pakistani relatives. He no longer owns an American business that operated in Pakistan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02085.h1


Foreign Influence

05/21/2020

Applicant has only minimal contact with his Taiwanese relatives, none of whom are associated with the Taiwanese government. He no longer has property interests, nor significant bank accounts in Taiwan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01945.h1


Foreign Influence

05/21/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns related to his family connections to Iran. His request for national security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00072.h1


Foreign Influence

05/21/2020

Applicant has little contact with his Pakistani relatives. He no longer owns an American business that operated in Pakistan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02085.h1


Foreign Influence

05/21/2020

Applicant has only minimal contact with his Taiwanese relatives, none of whom are associated with the Taiwanese government. He no longer has property interests, nor significant bank accounts in Taiwan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01945.h1


Foreign Influence

05/21/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns related to his family connections to Iran. His request for national security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00072.h1


Use of Information Technology; Personal Conduct

05/20/2020

The security concerns raised by Applicant's misuse of his employer's laptop in violation of company policies are not mitigated. His request for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01084.h1


Foreign Influence

05/20/2020

The presence of close personal relationships in Iraq presents a heightened risk of manipulation or inducement to act in a way inconsistent with U.S. interests. The security concerns raised by Applicant's ties to family members residing in, and who are citizens of, Iraq are not mitigated. His request for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01046.h1


Guideline F

05/20/2020

After considering Applicant's brief in light of the entirety of the record, we conclude that Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has she demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed CASE NO: 19-02451.a1


Guideline F

05/20/2020

Applicant contends that he was not aware of his right to request a hearing. The record shows, however, that Applicant's SOR included an attachment by which he could request either a hearing or a decision on the written record. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02207.a1


Guideline F

05/20/2020

We have examined the entire record and decision, paying particular attention to the transcript of the hearing. We find nothing therein to suggest that the Judge lacked impartiality or that she entered the hearing with an inflexible predisposition against Applicant. The transcript does not support Applicant's claim of bias. He has neither rebutted the presumption that theJudge was unbiased nor shown that the hearing was conducted in a manner the denied him a fair opportunity to testify. He was provided the due process that the Directive affords him. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01796.a1


Guideline E

05/20/2020

Applicant relies extensively on decisions of Hearing Office Judges to support his arguments. He cites those decisions to show that Judges decided particular issues or cases in favor of applicants. His reliance on those Hearing Office decisions is misplaced. Decisions byHearing Office Judges are not legally binding precedent that the Appeal Board must follow. TheBoard is neither required to justify why it chooses not to follow Hearing Office decisions nor required to reconcile its decisions with such lower decisions. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00327.a1


Guideline E; Guideline J; Guideline M

05/20/2020

As provided in Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1, the Appeal Board gives deference to a Judge's credibility determination. From our review of the record, the Judge's material findings and conclusions regarding the theft of the computer equipment are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 17-01817.a1


Financial

05/19/2020

Applicant student loan debt is in deferment, and he has paid the remaining, unexpected, small debt. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02273.h1


Financial

05/19/2020

Applicant has failed to address any of his admitted past-due debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02103.h1


Personal Conduct, Psychological Conditions

05/19/2020

Applicant falsified information on two security clearance applications and submitted a resume to an employer that contained false information. She did not mitigate the resulting personal conduct security concerns. A psychological evaluation determined that she has a personality disorder which impairs her judgment. She did not mitigate the resulting psychological conditions security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00673.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

05/19/2020

Applicant has a history of marijuana use to include using the drug after being granted access to classified information. He also has a history of deliberately making false statements to the government about his history of marijuana use. He failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his misconduct. Clearance is denied. CASE NO. 19-00451.h1


Financial Considerations

05/19/2020

Applicant’s 2005 Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petition was converted to a Chapter 7 in 2009 and then dismissed. Applicant incurred 11 additional delinquent debts between 2013 and September 2018. His evidence in mitigation does not overcome the security concerns based on the guideline for financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00319.h1


Financial

05/19/2020

Applicant has failed to address any of his admitted past-due debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02103.h1


Financial

05/14/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts, including delinquent federal and state income taxes. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02009.h1


Financial

05/14/2020

Applicant had a plan to resolve his financial problems, and he took significant action to implement that plan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01785.h1


Financial

05/14/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts, including delinquent federal and state income taxes. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02009.h1


Financial

05/14/2020

Applicant had a plan to resolve his financial problems, and he took significant action to implement that plan. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01785.h1


Guideline F

05/13/2020

Applicant's appeal brief contains documents postdating the Judge's decision. He makes various arguments based on those documents. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02306.a1


Guideline H; Guideline J

05/13/2020

We have previously recognized that the precedential value of our decisions may be affected by changes to the Directive or the Guidelines. We also are aware that an arrest must be based on probable cause that a criminal offense has been or is being committed. Having said that, all record evidence pertaining to an arrest should be analyzed in determining whether AG ¶ 31(b)is established. CASE NO: 19-01992.a1


Guideline F

05/13/2020

Applicant argues that the Judge "did not have all the facts.: Appeal Brief at 1. However, it was Applicant's task to provide evidence in mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. If Applicant believed that the record required more evidence, it fell to him to supply it. Applicant provides information about the circumstances of his financial problems and his efforts to address them. However, he has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01206.a1


Guideline F; Guideline G

05/13/2020

Applicant's Appeal Brief contends the amount of his alleged IRS indebtedness was incorrect. However, in responding to DOHA interrogatories, he submitted an IRS tax transcript that reflects he owed the alleged amount as of March 2019. He also contends that the Judge's decision will have a adverse impact on him, his employer, and his clients, but such an impact is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00075.a1


Guideline F

05/13/2020

Applicant states the following: "I was unaware and was not given a deadline before my clearance was revoked." To the extent that he is raising an issue of due process, we find no reason to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded by the Directive. See, e.g., Directive ¶ 4.3 for a concise description of an applicant's due process rights. Furthermore,the Applicant and the Judge had a lengthy discussion of how the process works after a hearing,including the possibility that the Judge might deny or revoke Applicant's clearance. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02131.a1


Guideline B; Guideline J; Guideline E

05/13/2020

We have considered Applicant's arguments in light of the evidence, Applicant's SOR admissions, and the official notice documents regarding Morocco that the Judge included in the record. We conclude that the Judge's material findings of security concern are based upon "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record." Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02041.a1


Financial

05/12/2020

Applicant presented some important mitigating information; however, he failed to fully mitigate security concerns arising under Guideline F (financial considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02562.h1


Foreign Influence

05/12/2020

The presence of close personal relationships in the People’s Republic of China (China) presents a heightened risk of manipulation or inducement to act in a way inconsistent with U.S. interests. The security concerns raised by Applicant's ties to family members residing in, and who are citizens of, China are not mitigated. His request for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02461.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

05/12/2020

Applicant mitigated Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) security concerns because his most recent marijuana use was in 2014, and his marijuana use is not recent; however, he did not mitigate Guideline E (personal conduct) security concerns relating to his false statements in 2018 about his history of marijuana use. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01842.h1


Financial

05/12/2020

Applicant incurred significant student debt in college and while pursuing a doctoral degree. These debts became delinquent because he could not afford to pay them on his limited income. Applicant has established a sufficient track record of responsible action towards resolving them. His delinquent debts in the Statement of Reasons are being resolved. He is now earning enough money to address his debts, and has sufficient savings to continue to do so. Though the debts are ongoing, he has mitigated financial security concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01685.h1


Foreign Influence

05/12/2020

Applicant has strong connections to Pakistan, a country with serious problems with terrorists. He is close to his mother, and a retired Pakistan colonel is his “best friend.” His mother and the retired Pakistan colonel are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Applicant served 24 years in the Pakistan Army, and he is receiving a pension from the Pakistan government. He and his spouse have property in Pakistan. His connections to Pakistan create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. Foreign influence security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00533.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

05/12/2020

Applicant mitigated Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) security concerns because his most recent marijuana use was in 2014, and his marijuana use is not recent; however, he did not mitigate Guideline E (personal conduct) security concerns relating to his false statements in 2018 about his history of marijuana use. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01842.h1


Financial

05/12/2020

Applicant incurred significant student debt in college and while pursuing a doctoral degree. These debts became delinquent because he could not afford to pay them on his limited income. Applicant has established a sufficient track record of responsible action towards resolving them. His delinquent debts in the Statement of Reasons are being resolved. He is now earning enough money to address his debts, and has sufficient savings to continue to do so. Though the debts are ongoing, he has mitigated financial security concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01685.h1


Foreign Influence

05/12/2020

Applicant has strong connections to Pakistan, a country with serious problems with terrorists. He is close to his mother, and a retired Pakistan colonel is his "best friend." His mother and the retired Pakistan colonel are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Applicant served 24 years in the Pakistan Army, and he is receiving a pension from the Pakistan government. He and his spouse have property in Pakistan. His connections to Pakistan create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. Foreign influence security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00533.h1


Financial

05/11/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02841.h1


Financial Considerations

05/11/2020

Applicant had six collection accounts, delinquent Federal income tax, and a state tax lien. He provided sufficient evidence addressing his financial difficulties and delinquent obligations. Financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01057.h1


Financial

05/11/2020

Applicant fully mitigated the financial security concerns created by his failure to timely file Federal and state income tax returns for several years between 2011 and 2017. National security eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 19-00665.h1


Guideline F

05/11/2020

Applicant says that he is not asserting that the Judge erred. Rather he is challenging the accuracy and sufficiency of the record evidence. To the extent he is making an argument that he was denied due process, it is unpersuasive on this record. The record shows Applicant was interviewed in 2018, received an SOR and responded to it in 2019, received the File of RelevantMaterial (FORM) in 2019 and responded to the FORM in 2020. There is no basis to conclude that he was denied due process. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02018.a1


Guideline H; Guideline B

05/11/2020

Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. His brief does contain assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. TheAppeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01098.a1


Guideline F

05/11/2020

Applicant contends that his ex-wife was responsible for filing their tax returns and argues that he cannot obtain W-2's from the IRS that are more than 10 years old. He also notes that one debt was for an automobile loan he cosigned for his former step-daughter, and he is negotiating a resolution of that debt. His arguments fail to establish that the Judge committed any harmful errors in the decision. He further asserts that his job requires a security clearance. However, the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00523.a1


Guideline H; Guideline E

05/11/2020

The ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine is not applicable in a DOHA proceeding. An examination of the record shows that Applicant received from DOHA the due process afforded by the Directive. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02398.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

05/07/2020

Applicant’s excessive financial indebtedness has not been mitigated. She also deliberately concealed her financial delinquencies from the government on her security clearance application. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01563.h1


Financial

05/06/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02208.h1


Guideline F

05/06/2020

The Board does not review a case 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. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore,the decision of the Judge is sustainable. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02397.a1


Guideline F

05/06/2020

Although we give due consideration to Applicant's brief, in the past we have held it reasonable for applicants to corroborate their claims to have sent to the Judge evidence that did not make it into the record. Applicant has not provided a copy of any such request, nor has he submitted a mailing receipt, email transmission document, etc. Given the record that is before us, we conclude that Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he submitted a request for an extension. Applicant has otherwise not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Our authority to review a case is limited to those in which the appealing party alleges that the Judge committed harmful error. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01567.a1


Guideline E; Guideline F

05/06/2020

Applicant argues that the Judge should have sua sponte taken administrative notice of policies and procedures of another Federal agency and then proceeds to provide information about those purported matters. In the past, the Appeal Board has stated a party that does not ask a Judge to take administrative notice of a specific matter at the hearing has a heavy burden on appeal of demonstrating that the Judge's inaction was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00337.a1


Foreign Influence

05/05/2020

Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen from China, failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by her familial relationships with individuals who are citizens of China. Clearance is denied. CASE NO. 19-02510.h1


Financial

05/05/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02194.h1


Financial

05/05/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02153.h1


Financial

05/05/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02153.h1


Financial

05/04/2020

Though some of Applicant's SOR debts have been recently resolved, most of them remain unpaid. Applicant has yet to establish a sufficient track record of payments towards his debts to fully mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01973.h1


Financial

05/04/2020

Applicant's debts arose largely after his marriage ended and he experienced low income during periods of employment instability. His 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: 19-01955.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct, Foreign Influence

05/04/2020

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial security concerns arising from her delinquent debts, including past-due taxes. She mitigated personal conduct security concerns about her failure to disclose her various delinquencies on her security clearance application. She mitigated foreign influence security concerns about her family members in Nigeria. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01732.h1


Financial

05/04/2020

Applicant has extensive student loan debt that was in temporary forbearance during 2019. She cannot afford to repay many other delinquent medical, income tax, and consumer credit debts, and defaulted on her most recent bankruptcy plan after her Victim Advocate position was eliminated in 2016. Resulting trustworthiness concerns were not mitigated. National security eligibility to occupy a designated sensitive position is denied. CASE NO: 18-03002.h1


Financial

05/04/2020

Though some of Applicant's SOR debts have been recently resolved, most of them remain unpaid. Applicant has yet to establish a sufficient track record of payments towards his debts to fully mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01973.h1


Financial

05/04/2020

Applicant's debts arose largely after his marriage ended and he experienced low income during periods of employment instability. His 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: 19-01955.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct, Foreign Influence

05/04/2020

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial security concerns arising from her delinquent debts, including past-due taxes. She mitigated personal conduct security concerns about her failure to disclose her various delinquencies on her security clearance application. She mitigated foreign influence security concerns about her family members in Nigeria. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01732.h1


Financial

05/04/2020

Applicant has extensive student loan debt that was in temporary forbearance during 2019. She cannot afford to repay many other delinquent medical, income tax, and consumer credit debts, and defaulted on her most recent bankruptcy plan after her Victim Advocate position was eliminated in 2016. Resulting trustworthiness concerns were not mitigated. National security eligibility to occupy a designated sensitive position is denied. CASE NO: 18-03002.h1


Financial

04/30/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02033.h1


Drug Involvement; Personal Conduct; Financial

04/30/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns generated by his use of marijuana, his falsifications regarding marijuana use on multiple investigative processing applications, and his outstanding tax debt. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00338.h1


Financial

04/30/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02033.h1


Drug Involvement; Personal Conduct; Financial

04/30/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns generated by his use of marijuana, his falsifications regarding marijuana use on multiple investigative processing applications, and his outstanding tax debt. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00338.h1


Financial; Sexual Behavior

04/30/2020

Applicant did not file his income tax returns for tax years 2015 and 2016 until 2019. He incurred about $157,674 in unsecured delinquent debt, $68,206 of which are federal student loans that will survive his Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed in January 2019. His divorce strained his finances, and he has made ten months of payments under his bankruptcy plan, but some concerns persist about his financial judgment. Charges of indecent exposure and lewdness in September 2016 were not fully established. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-01319.h1


Financial

04/29/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02535.h1


Financial

04/29/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by his history of unresolved delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02474.h1


Financial

04/29/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by his history of unresolved delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02432.h1


Financial; Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

04/29/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by his delinquent debts, but failed to mitigate his alcohol consumption and criminal conduct security concerns resulting from a second driving under the influence of alcohol arrest. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02138.h1


Financial

04/29/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by his history of unresolved delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02132.h1


Drugs

04/29/2020

Applicant disclosed his recreational marijuana use, with varying frequency, between 1998 and July 2018. Resulting trustworthiness concerns were mitigated after he voluntarily stopped using marijuana and credibly evinced his intent to abstain from substance misuse in the future. National security eligibility to occupy a designated sensitive position is granted. CASE NO: 18-02951.h1


Drugs

04/29/2020

Applicant disclosed his recreational marijuana use, with varying frequency, between 1998 and July 2018. Resulting trustworthiness concerns were mitigated after he voluntarily stopped using marijuana and credibly evinced his intent to abstain from substance misuse in the future. National security eligibility to occupy a designated sensitive position is granted. CASE NO: 18-02951.h1


Foreign Influence; Financial

04/29/2020

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence and financial considerations security concerns raised by his extended family members in Sudan and delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01580.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

04/29/2020

Applicant mitigated the personal conduct security concerns, but failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01560.h1


Financial

04/29/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by a delinquent debt and judgment. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01322.h1


Foreign Influence

04/29/2020

Based upon the depth of Applicant’s emotional, professional, financial, and social contacts in the United States, I am persuaded that he would resolve any conflict generated by his family members, who are citizens and residents of Russia, in the U.S. interest. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00831.h1


Guideline F

04/29/2020

Applicant notes the disqualifying conditions that the Judge applied and cites to evidence that he believes demonstrates that these conditions have not been satisfied. We construe his argument to mean that the Judge erred in concluding that his circumstances raised security concerns. The Judge's findings about Applicant's ongoing, significant delinquent debt support his conclusion that Applicant's circumstances raise security concerns. Debts that have remained unpaid over a course of years can properly be characterized as a history of delinquent debt. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01258.a1


Financial

04/28/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02368.h1


Financial

04/28/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02328.h1


Foreign Influence

04/28/2020

Applicant's foreign connections with Israel, which include his two daughters and several close friends, military service, government employment, and years of emotional attachments have not been mitigated. Significant security risks exist. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02305.h1


Drugs

04/27/2020

Applicant mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02277.h1


Foreign Influence; Personal Conduct

04/27/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the personal conduct security concerns due to falsifications of certain security clearance applications and subject interview. He has mitigated the foreign influence security concerns. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02239.h1


Foreign Influence; Personal Conduct

04/27/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the personal conduct security concerns due to falsifications of certain security clearance applications and subject interview. He has mitigated the foreign influence security concerns. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02239.h1


Financial

04/22/2020

Applicant’s evidence is sufficient to demonstrate financial responsibility. He resolved eight of the ten delinquent accounts alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). He is currently unemployed and has acquired no additional delinquent accounts. Given the opportunity, he would continue resolving the two remaining delinquent accounts. He mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02050.h1


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct

04/22/2020

Applicant solicited prostitutes four times between 2015 and 2016, while possessing a clearance. He has not reduced or eliminated his vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, and duress. He has not been fully frank and candid about his involvement with prostitutes. His evidence is insufficient to mitigate the sexual behavior (Guideline D) and personal conduct (Guideline E) security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01840.h1


Financial

04/22/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the concerns raised under the financial considerations guideline. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00684.h1


Financial

04/22/2020

Applicant's evidence is sufficient to demonstrate financial responsibility. He resolved eight of the ten delinquent accounts alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). He is currently unemployed and has acquired no additional delinquent accounts. Given the opportunity, he would continue resolving the two remaining delinquent accounts. He mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02050.h1


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct

04/22/2020

Applicant solicited prostitutes four times between 2015 and 2016, while possessing a clearance. He has not reduced or eliminated his vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, and duress. He has not been fully frank and candid about his involvement with prostitutes. His evidence is insufficient to mitigate the sexual behavior (Guideline D) and personal conduct (Guideline E) security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01840.h1


Financial

04/22/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the concerns raised under the financial considerations guideline. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-00684.h1


Foreign Influence

04/22/2020

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01583.h1


Guideline B; Guideline H

04/22/2020

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 have examined the Decision in light of the record as a whole and find nothing that would likely convince a reasonable person that the Judge lacked the requisite impartiality. Applicant has not met his heavy burden of persuasion on this issue. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01666.a1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

04/16/2020

Applicant fully mitigated the Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference concerns created by her contacts and connections with Turkey. National security eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 19-00486.h1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

04/16/2020

Applicant fully mitigated the Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference concerns created by her contacts and connections with Turkey. National security eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 19-00486.h1


Financial

04/15/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns under the above guideline. He did not provide evidence of attempts to resolve his delinquent debt or his child support payments. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02231.h1


Financial

04/15/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. He does not have a track record of consistent payment on his delinquent debts. He does not have a current repayment plan in place with the IRS for his delinquent taxes. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01429.h1


Financial

04/13/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns about his finances. A bankruptcy petition in 2000 occurred under circumstances unrelated to commercial credit accounts and student loans that became delinquent as his second marriage was ending. Information about his actions to address those debts, and the strength of his current finances, is sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by the Government's information. Applicant's request for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01990.h1


Alcohol; Financial; Personal Conduct

04/07/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns related to his prior alcohol issues, failure to file tax returns, and other personal conduct. His request for national security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01248.h1


Financial

04/06/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by his history of unresolved delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02360.h1


Financial

04/06/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by his history of unresolved delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02275.h1


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

04/03/2020

Applicant did not intentionally provide false statements in response to questions in his security clearance application. Additionally, his positive change in personal and professional circumstances, combined with the moderation of his alcohol usage and with the passage of time since any adverse conduct, are sufficient to mitigate the security concerns about his use of alcohol, his criminal conduct, and his personal conduct. His request for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00266.h1


Drug Involvement

04/01/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by her use of illicit drugs between April 2004 and March 2015 by demonstrating her change of lifestyle and friends, and by executing the statement of intent contemplated by the Directive. Clearance granted. CASE NO: 18-02241.h1


Financial

04/01/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02583.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

03/31/2020

Applicant is a longtime marijuana user who continued to use the drug while holding a security clearance. He was not candid about his marijuana use on security clearance applications completed in February 2008 and February 2018. While he now indicates that he would stop using marijuana for his job, his drug use in violation of his clearance obligations and his lack of candor about his marijuana use continue to cast doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02577.h1


Financial

03/31/2020

Applicant owes approximately $37,646 in delinquent debts, of which $30,698 is past due on the mortgage for his marital residence. His mortgage is in foreclosure proceedings, and he has made no progress on resolving the other debts. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00539.h1


Financial

03/31/2020

Applicant owes approximately $37,646 in delinquent debts, of which $30,698 is past due on the mortgage for his marital residence. His mortgage is in foreclosure proceedings, and he has made no progress on resolving the other debts. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00539.h1


Psychological Conditions; Drugs; Alcohol

03/31/2020

Applicant has mental health issues that are largely controllable with treatment. He continues to consume alcohol regularly to intoxication. He used marijuana from 2002 to 2016, and prescription stimulants illegally 2002 to 2005, January 2007 to January 2008, and in July 2018. Psychological conditions security concerns are mitigated, but drug involvement and substance misuse and alcohol consumption security concerns persist. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-01662.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/31/2020

Applicant received non-judicial punishment in 2006 for fraudulent activity, false statement, impersonation, and unauthorized wearing of a military uniform. Doubts persist about his personal conduct, despite the passage of time. He has a history of financial delinquency that is not fully mitigated. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-01234.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

03/31/2020

Applicant experienced past financial difficulties due to circumstances that are unlikely to recur and do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. His omissions on his security clearance application were unintentional. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00662.h1


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

03/31/2020

Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse, marked by four driving while impaired (DWI)-driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol convictions, and numerous traffic offenses. Her last alcohol-related offense occurred in 2017. She has established a pattern of abstinence, modified behavior, and rehabilitation. Alcohol consumption and criminal conduct concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00381.h1


Foreign Influence

03/31/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns related to his family connections to Taiwan. His request for national security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02984.h1


Finances

03/31/2020

Despite years of seeking a modification to an unwieldy mortgage, Applicant ultimately stopped making payments, abandoned the property, and hoped her return of a postcard soliciting potential class action members would ameliorate her situation with her lender. For a year until the hearing, she took no action to resolve her remaining debt or clarify whether she was part of the class action suit. To date, she only has plans to seek assistance, take a second job, or file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02413.h1


Alcohol, Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct

03/31/2020

Over the past decade, Applicant has been involved in four alcohol-related incidents involving criminal or prohibited conduct. He is contrite and has sought appropriate rehabilitation. However, little more than two years of sobriety or controlled drinking is insufficient to gauge his likelihood for relapse to that extent he regularly has had these brushes every two-and-a-half years. I find Applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01792.h1


Personal Conduct, Information Technology

03/31/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct security concerns raised by his past conduct and ongoing inconsistent statements. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01178.h1


Financial Considerations

03/31/2020

Applicant had past-due and collection accounts. He provide documentation showing his action to address those delinquent obligations. He provided sufficient evidence addressing his financial difficulties. Financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02516.h1


Financial

03/31/2020

Applicant has mitigated the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). He has made sufficient progress in resolving his delinquent debt. Eligibility for access to public trust position is granted CASE NO: 19-02230.h1


Financial

03/31/2020

Applicant has a substantiated, good-faith basis to dispute the allegedly outstanding student loan. Of the three remaining debts alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR), the evidence the Government presented did not establish one of them, and the other two, collectively totaling less than $2,200, do not generate a security risk, in light of Applicant's salary and the absence of any other indicia of financial instability. Applicant has mitigated the security risk. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02131.h1


Financial Considerations; Personal Conduct

03/31/2020

Applicant owes a large student loan in collection and other delinquent debts. He failed to provide sufficient evidence addressing his financial difficulties and failed to show sufficient progress in addressing his delinquent obligations. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. In 2007, the state chose in the interest of justice to dismiss sexual misconduct charges against Applicant. The personal conduct security concern was not established. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01767.h1


Alcohol

03/31/2020

Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol use, marked by three driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol arrests, and an alcohol-related offense. His most recent alcohol-related offense occurred in 2016. He successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and has established a pattern of modified consumption of alcohol. Alcohol consumption security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01188.h1


Financial

03/31/2020

Applicant fully mitigated the financial security concerns created by three old credit card accounts that he and his wife erroneously believed had been fully resolved several years ago, after his wife lost her job in a corporate reorganization. National security eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 19-01145.h1


Financial

03/31/2020

Applicant incurred delinquent debts, however his finances are now under control. He has mitigated the Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concern. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01065.h1


Guideline F

03/31/2020

Applicant argues that she is not a security threat. In this regard, we note that theFederal Government is not required to wait until an applicant has mishandled or failed to safeguard classified information before it can deny or revoke the applicant's access to such information. Even if an applicant has never engaged in a security violation, the Government still can consider whether an applicant's conduct or circumstances raise security concerns. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01525.a1


Guideline F

03/31/2020

Applicant claims there is no nexus between his tax filing deficiencies and how he performs his security clearance responsibilities. The Directive, however, presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven circumstances under any of its guidelines and an applicant's security eligibility. Direct or objective evidence of nexus is not required. Moreover,Guideline F recognizes that applicants who do not act responsibly in the handing of their finances, such as filing tax returns when due, may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01431.a1


Guideline F

03/31/2020

Applicant's arguments amounts to a disagreement with the Judge's weighing of the evidence. For example, Applicant takes exception to the Judge's conclusion that he took a personal trip outside of the United States while he had delinquent debts. His arguments,however, are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01005.a1


Guideline F; Guideline E

03/31/2020

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. Bias is not demonstrated merely because a Judge found against the appealing party. Nor is bias demonstrated merely because a party can show a Judge committed a factual or legal error. The standard is not whether a party personally believes a Judge was biased or prejudiced against that party. Rather, as Applicant notes, the standard to demonstrate bias is whether the record of the proceedings contains any indication that the Judge acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable, disinterested person to question the fairness and impartiality of the Judge. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Applicant has failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating the Judge was biased against her. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-00110.a1


Financial

03/30/2020

Applicant accrued numerous delinquent or past-due debts as a result of injuries from traffic accidents and other medical issues. Additionally, Applicant failed to timely file her state and federal income tax returns between 2010 and 2017, and she incurred a large bill for unpaid taxes. Applicant’s failure to timely address her debts, as well as her ongoing failure to file and pay her income taxes, undermine confidence in her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Accordingly, Applicant’s request for continued access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02475.h1


Finances, Foreign Influence

03/30/2020

Applicant has a mother-in-law who is a citizen and resident of Ukraine, where she receives monthly sums of money from her daughter, Applicant’s spouse. The spouse and her sibling, who is a Ukrainian citizen currently in residing Russia, will ultimately inherit a $25,000-$30,000 Ukrainian apartment in 50% shares. Both these foreign kin come from non-managerial roles in the private sector, and have no ties to a foreign government or military. For a number of years, Applicant knowingly procrastinated and failed to timely file Federal and state tax returns, an issue he did not complete addressing until less than a year ago. He admitted that more tax returns in the past may have gone unfiled and may still be outstanding. While Applicant’s and his wife’s ties to the United States are considerably stronger than they are to any foreign relatives or interests, Applicant’s non-adherence to tax rules and regulations is sufficiently worrisome to sustain financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE No.: 18-01975.h1


Finances

03/30/2020

After nearly two decades in the United States military and a few years of work as a contractor with varying rates of income, the 60-year-old Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2010. Unbeknownst to Applicant, two student loans were not included in that petition, and a subsequent car-related debt was acquired. When apprised of these obligations, he immediately addressed and satisfied the automotive debt, and rehabilitated his two student loans. He otherwise lives within his means. Applicant has mitigated financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01136.h1


Guideline F

03/30/2020

Directive &‌para; E3.1.7 provides that an applicant shall have 30 days from receipt of theFORM in which to submit a documentary response. A review of the entire record discloses no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the rights afforded him under the Directive or that he was not provided an adequate opportunity to respond to the FORM. We resolve Applicant's denial of due process assertion adversely to him. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01492.a1


Guideline B; Guideline C; Guideline F; Guideline E

03/30/2020

Applicant asserts that the Judge "referenced a 'promise' made by [Applicant] that domestic disturbance situations would not occur in the future. [Applicant] never made a 'promise' that further domestic disturbances would not occur in the future." Applicant called the Judge's conclusion absurd and unrealistic. In the findings of fact, the Judge correctly quoted a pertinent comment in Applicant's SOR Response, i.e., that he and his wife had come out of counseling stronger and closer than ever, and he “can say with the utmost confidence that the behaviors of the past will not recur.” From our review of the record, we find no reason to conclude that the Judge's characterization of this comment as a “promise” was either an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence or, more to the point, was a conclusion that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00392.a1


Guideline K; Guideline E

03/30/2020

In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that he did not intentionally withhold information during the polygraph. We note that the quotes from Applicant's sworn statement(Government Exhibit 3) are accurate. From our review of the record, the Judge's material findings about Applicant's use of countermeasures to influence the results of a polygraph are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02315.a1


Financial

03/26/2020

Applicant's history of financial indebtedness in the amount of approximately $60,000, consisting mostly of student loan debt, has been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02347.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/26/2020

Applicant's history of financial indebtedness has for the most part been resolved. He was not candid with the government on his security clearance application concerning his drug involvement and criminal history. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01014.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/25/2020

Applicant is on a payment plan for her defaulted federal student loans. She did not intentionally provide false information on a Questionnaire for National Security Positions. Personal conduct security concerns are refuted, and financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01557.h1


Financial

03/24/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts and failures to timely file his federal and state income tax returns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00642.h1


Use of Information Systems; Personal Conduct

03/24/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his attempt to use a co-worker's security credentials and his unauthorized use of a personal thumb drive in an unclassified information technology system. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02686.h1


Financial; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

03/20/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns about her financial problems, as well as about her past criminal conduct. Her inaccurate answers to questions about her finances were not given with any intent to mislead or deceive the government about those issues. Her request for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00593.h1


Financial; Foreign Influence

03/20/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns related to his substantial past-due indebtedness. He has mitigated the security concerns related to his wife’s family connections to the Philippines. His request for national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00302.h1


Foreign Influence

03/20/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the Foreign Influence concerns created by his contacts and connections with family members in Iraq. National security eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02656.h1


Financial

03/20/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his repeated failures to file his federal and state income tax returns. CASE NO: 19-02663.h1


Financial

03/20/2020

Applicant has not mitigated security concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02250.h1


Foreign Influence

03/20/2020

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: 19-02163.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

03/20/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts and refuted the allegation that he falsified his security clearance application by intentionally failing to disclose his delinquent debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02097.h1


Foreign Influence

03/20/2020

Applicant is a 37-year-old Iraqi-born, naturalized U.S. citizen whose parents, siblings, and in-laws are Iraqi citizen-residents. He is a prospective employee of a defense contractor who will be serving as a linguist-translator, to be deployed to Iraq. He previously served in the same capacity with the U.S. Army in Iraq from February 2005 until November 2011, 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. With his wife 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 ability to protect classified information. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 19-01579.h1


Financial

03/20/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his delinquent tax filings, tax debts, and other financial delinquencies. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00671.h1


Financial

03/18/2020

Applicant defaulted on $36,359 in consumer debt, including some federal student loans. He has been making small payments on the debts, but he has yet to establish that his financial issues are no longer of security concern. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02340.h1


Financial

03/18/2020

Applicant was immature and failed to exercise sufficient control over his various accounts to assure that they were maintained in a current status. As a result, seven accounts totaling approximately $27,800 became delinquent, including one vehicle repossession and four charged-off accounts. One of those debts became delinquent as early as 2015, and by the time the record closed in March 2020, only one of them had been verifiably addressed by Applicant. He routinely made unfulfilled promises to address his debts, but he failed to do so, even with one having a relatively modest balance of $523. Applicant’s action, delayed action, or inaction, continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-01995.h1


Finances, Personal Conduct, Drugs

03/18/2020

From high school until just over four years ago, Applicant occasionally used marijuana. He has quit using the drug and is committed to remaining drug-free. In 2016, he was dismissed from a job over what appears to have been a misunderstanding. With little knowledge of taxes and based on bad advice, the then-naive Applicant failed to timely file and pay his federal and state taxes for several years in the mid-2010s. He has since matured, become more savvy, sought tax help, filed for the tax years at issue, and is now in timely repayment on tax balances owed. Applicant mitigated all security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 17-03497.h1


Financial

03/17/2020

Applicant incurred nine delinquent debts totaling $82,051. Recognizing that he needed to regain financial responsibility, he retained the services of a debt relief law firm. The firm provided him with financial counseling and has been actively negotiating settlements with his creditors. As a result of their assistance, Applicant has made substantial inroads to paying down his debt. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01433.h1


Guideline F

03/17/2020

We note Applicant's Answer to the SOR, in which he stated that he had requested filing extensions. However, there is nothing in the record or in Applicant's appeal submission that would show that he had filed his returns on time, which is the gravamen of the case. Considering Applicant's arguments as a whole, we find no error that would have affected the outcome of the decision. Therefore, any such errors are harmless. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01938.a1


Guideline F

03/17/2020

Applicant cites to information contained in her Answer to the SOR and in herResponse to the File of Relevant Material. She notes, for example, evidence that she had acquired some of her debts in an effort to assist others, that she believed that an auto debt had been resolved through foreclosure, that one of her debts was being resolved through garnishment,etc. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00990.a1


Handling Protected Information, Information Technology

03/16/2020

Applicant mitigated the handling of protected information and use of information technology concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-01631.h1


Financial; Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

03/13/2020

Applicant failed to file her federal and state income tax returns for the tax years 2015 and 2016. As of her 2019 Answer to the Statement of Reasons (SOR), she admitted that those income tax returns had still not been filed. She offered no claimed change in the status of those federal and state income tax returns by the date the record closed. She also was admittedly a recreational substance abuser. She purchased, possessed and used marijuana, a controlled substance, with varying frequency, over a 13-year period, reportedly ending as recently as December 2017. She was arrested on two separate occasions for drug-related incidents, with the second incident associated with her registering a positive drug-test result during her time in a court-ordered diversion program. CASE NO: 19-01910.h1


Personal Conduct; Information Technology

03/12/2020

On three occasions, Applicant used a DOD agency’s IT system to view illicit material containing sexual content. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02150.h1


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

03/12/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the concerns related to his four alcohol-related arrests between 1987 and 2018. He is on probation until 2023 and last drank alcohol in October 2019, one month before his hearing. His request for national security eligibility and a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01400.h1


Financial

03/12/2020

Applicant's financial problems were due to underemployment and unemployment as well as relying on the services of a tax preparer who prepared erroneous federal tax returns. He initiated a good-faith effort to repay his delinquent debts and resolved all five of the delinquent debts at issue. He also entered into an installment agreement with the IRS to repay the back taxes he owes for multiple tax years. The evidence is sufficient to mitigate his history of financial problems. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 19-01141.h1


Financial

03/12/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. CASE NO: 19-02386.h1


Alcohol; Drugs

03/12/2020

I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated security concerns raised by his history of excessive alcohol consumption and drug involvement. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00550.h1


Financial

03/11/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02487.h1


Financial

03/11/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01774.h1


Financial

03/10/2020

Applicant failed to timely file most of his federal income tax returns between tax years 2004 and 2010. He also failed to timely file state income tax returns for tax years 2010-2016. Given his long and recent pattern of failures to comply with federal and state tax requirements, Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the resulting security concerns under Guideline F for financial considerations. Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02799.h1


Foreign Influence, Financial, Personal Conduct

03/10/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns related to his family connections in the Philippines and his delinquent debts. He did not falsify a DOD questionnaire as alleged. His request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is granted.


Drugs

03/10/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns involving drug involvement and substance misuse. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02104.h1


Financial, Criminal

03/10/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines F and J. Applicant incurred a number of financial obligations that he failed to pay in a timely manner. He also failed to complete the requirements of a court's sentence for an alcohol-related driving offense and is the subject on an outstanding arrest warrant. Based upon the record as a whole, Applicant's evidence was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by his financial and criminal conduct. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01548.h1


Financial

03/09/2020

Applicant's financial problems were not self-made difficulties. They were created by two layoffs and two periods of unemployment. As soon as he was financially able, well before the SOR was issued, he started addressing his accounts. Applicant's actions no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 19-02503.h1


Foreign Influence; Financial

03/09/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his family connections to Iraq and his delinquent debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01510.h1


Foreign Influence, Foreign Preference; Personal Conduct

03/06/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns related to his family connections to the Philippines, and his conduct in regard to Philippine citizenship. He did not falsify a DoD questionnaire as alleged. His request for national security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00456.h1


Financial

03/06/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. She has unresolved delinquent debts and has not filed her 2018 Federal or state income tax returns. CASE NO: 19-02362.h1


Personal Conduct

03/05/2020

Applicant was court-martialed for wrongful use of cocaine detected by urinalysis test and given a bad conduct discharge from the United States military. On an August 2014 security clearance application (SCA), he falsely claimed that he had received a general discharge; that he had never been convicted of a crime, including in a military court; and that he had not used any illegal drugs while possessing a security clearance. He initially denied that he had received a bad conduct discharge and lied about his drug use when interviewed by a government investigator in December 2016. The personal conduct security concerns raised by his lack of candor are not mitigated. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02929.h1


Personal Conduct

03/05/2020

Applicant was court-martialed for wrongful use of cocaine detected by urinalysis test and given a bad conduct discharge from the United States military. On an August 2014 security clearance application (SCA), he falsely claimed that he had received a general discharge; that he had never been convicted of a crime, including in a military court; and that he had not used any illegal drugs while possessing a security clearance. He initially denied that he had received a bad conduct discharge and lied about his drug use when interviewed by a government investigator in December 2016. The personal conduct security concerns raised by his lack of candor are not mitigated. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02929.h1


Foreign Influence

03/04/2020

Applicant has foreign family members who are citizens and residents of India. However, given his strong ties and longstanding relationships that he has developed in the United States since 1992, along with his divestment of Indian financial interests by November 2019, he can be expected to resolve potential conflicts of interest in favor of the U.S. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00269.h1


Foreign Influence

03/04/2020

Applicant has foreign family members who are citizens and residents of India. However, given his strong ties and longstanding relationships that he has developed in the United States since 1992, along with his divestment of Indian financial interests by November 2019, he can be expected to resolve potential conflicts of interest in favor of the US. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00269.h1


Financial

03/04/2020

Applicant has nine delinquent accounts totaling approximately $29,338. Several of those debts became delinquent as early as October or November 2016, and by the time the record closed in February 2020, none of them had been addressed by contacts with creditors or efforts to enter into payments of any amount. Instead, on the same day that she submitted her Answer to the statement of reasons (SOR) – about one month after the SOR was issued – her attorney filed for bankruptcy on her behalf under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. That bankruptcy still has not been resolved. Her repeated voluntary quitting of jobs that resulted in periods of unemployment; taking advantage of increased credit limits from creditors; prioritizing family desires over maintaining her accounts in a current status; and allowing accounts to become delinquent in late 2016 – months before the unexpected death of her brother in January 2017 – were not largely beyond her control. Applicant's actions, delayed action, or inaction, continue to cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02451.h1


Finances, Personal Conduct

03/04/2020

Although Applicant mitigated the personal conduct concerns alleged in the Statement of Reasons, she failed to mitigate the concerns raised by her history of ongoing financial problems and unresolved delinquent debts. Her request for eligibility to occupy a position of trust is denied. CASE NO. 19-01588.h1


Financial

03/04/2020

Applicant settled and paid his delinquent consumer debt; he settled his defaulted private student loan; and he has an income-based repayment plan for his federal student loans. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02315.h1


Personal Conduct, Financial, Alcohol, Criminal Conduct

03/04/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, Guideline G, alcohol consumption, and Guideline J, criminal conduct, but failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02221.h1


Financial

03/04/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by his history of unresolved delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01342.h1


Financial

03/03/2020

When he was deployed overseas in 2014, Applicant falsely claimed that his income was tax exempt, leading to several thousand dollars of past-due federal income taxes. He then failed to file annual federal income tax returns on time, as required, for tax years 2014-2016. While the tax returns at issue have now been filed and the past-due taxes have now been paid, this is insufficient to mitigate the financial security concerns resulting from his conduct. Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00076.h1


Financial

03/03/2020

Applicant paid or settled all three of the debts alleged in the statement of reasons (SOR). She paid two of the SOR debts before the SOR was issued. Her credit report indicates she has a track record of successful debt resolution. She mitigated security concerns arising under Guideline F (financial considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01802.h1


Financial

03/03/2020

Applicant experienced financial hardship after a failed business and unsuccessful marriage. He made positive changes in his life and satisfied his state tax liens. He has been making consistent monthly payments toward his Federal tax debt for over a year, and he is committed to continue paying until this debt is paid in full. Applicant mitigated the Guideline F, financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01280.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

03/03/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns involving drug involvement and substance misuse and personal conduct. Continued eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00529.h1


Financial

03/02/2020

Applicant defaulted on some $40,766 in delinquent debt on eight accounts, including a $3,066 student loan. In late October 2019, he entered into a debt management plan (DMP) to address seven unsecured consumer-credit debts totaling $35,577, requiring monthly payments of $835. As of February 2020, he had paid $7,747 toward his delinquent debts, including $3,806 under the DMP. Clearance is granted on the condition that he continue to make timely payments toward his delinquencies. CASE NO: 19-02793.h1


Sexual Conduct; Criminal Conduct

03/02/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines D (sexual conduct) and J (criminal conduct). For about ten years prior to October 2016, Applicant solicited sexual services with prostitutes and otherwise paid for sexual activities with women while living and working in a foreign country. He ceased this behavior in September 2016 and disclosed his misconduct to his spouse, family members, manager, security officer, and a U.S. Government investigator. Applicant provided significant evidence in mitigation. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00334.h1


Finances

03/02/2020

Applicant failed to timely file federal and state tax returns for 2012 due to frustration with his tax preparation software. He failed to file for tax years 2014-2015 while facing health problems. Once apprised he was legally obligated to file such returns, even when refunds are expected, he took corrective action. Applicant showed a record of subsequently timely filings and noted he now uses a professional tax preparer. Financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02004.h1


Financial

02/28/2020

Applicant has seven delinquent accounts totaling approximately $27,362. Two of those debts became delinquent as early as 2013, and by the time the record closed in February 2020, three of them had admittedly not been addressed by Applicant, and he offered no documentary proof that he had addressed the remaining four delinquent debts. Applicant's actions, or inaction, continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02306.h1


Finances

02/28/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. She has address her delinquent debts and made good-faith efforts since her unemployment. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02336.h1


Financial

02/28/2020

Applicant has mitigated security concerns raised by the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01334.h1


Financial

02/28/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file federal and state income tax returns over an extended period. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00900.h1


Drugs

02/26/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01749.h1


Financial

02/26/2020

Applicant's financial problems were primarily the result of conditions beyond his control. He acted responsibly under the circumstances and took significant action to implement a plan to pay his debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01555.h1


Personal Conduct; Drugs

02/26/2020

Applicant refuted the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, and mitigated the Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01479.h1


Psychological Conditions; Personal Conduct

02/26/2020

Although Applicant is complying with his mental-health treatment plan and has made progress, it is too soon to conclude that his mental-health disorder no longer generates a security concern. Applicant has made minimal progress in addressing his delinquent finances. I conclude that he has not mitigated the psychological conditions and financial conditions security concerns. CASE NO: 17-04128.h1


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct; Use of Information Technology

02/26/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct, criminal conduct, and use of information technology security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 17-01817.h1


Foreign Influence

02/26/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline B (foreign influence). Applicant has family members and a friend who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. Since 2018, Applicant has worked for the U.S. Army in a war zone as a linguist and has won the praise of his leadership for his excellent services in a dangerous environment. Applicant's evidence was sufficient to mitigate security concerns raised by his family circumstances. Based upon the record evidence as a whole, eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01689.h1


Financial

02/26/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant failed to file her federal personal income tax returns for the years 2012 through 2017, and failed to provide satisfactory evidence to show that she had filed her state tax returns for the same period. Applicant's evidence was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by her six-year pattern of not filing her tax returns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01513.h1


Financial

02/26/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the trustworthiness concerns raised by her repeated failures to timely file her federal and state income tax returns. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-01392.h1


Financial

02/26/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02430.h1


Financial

02/25/2020

Applicant is not responsible for the alleged student loan debts, which were incurred by his daughter, without his knowledge or consent. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01963.h1


Finances

02/25/2020

From age 18 through his early 30s, Applicant experienced periods of debt corresponding with periods of unemployment or medical necessity. Multiple attempt at bankruptcy petitions were dismissed for failure to adhere to his payment plans. Today, Applicant is capable of supporting his family and living within his means while saving for his future. He has almost completed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing without interruption. Applicant has mitigated financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02587.h1


Financial

02/25/2020

Applicant has not timely filed his Federal and state income tax returns. He has entered into various payment plans with the IRS over the years, but he has never completed a plan. His latest arrangement was in 2019, and he has made one payment. He provided no documentary evidence to show that he is addressing his delinquent debts with the exception of one account that he recently paid. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 19-01731.h1


Financial; Foreign Influence

02/25/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence, but failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01419.h1


Guideline F

02/25/2020

It is well established that the Government need not wait until a person has engaged in conduct adverse to the United States before it can deny a security clearance. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02113.a1


Financial

02/24/2020

Given Applicant's failure to act on two listed delinquent debts for five years, and the lack of significant evidence of financial counseling and solid financial practices, he has not satisfied his burden of persuasion under the financial considerations guideline. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01220.h1


Financial

02/24/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by her delinquent debts, unpaid tax liens, and unfiled tax returns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00057.h1


Financial

02/24/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant incurred a number of debts that he failed to pay in a timely manner. Based upon the record as a whole, Applicant's evidence was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by his financial behavior. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00582.h1


Foreign influence

02/24/2020

Applicant's longstanding ties and strong devotion to the U.S. mitigate security concerns raised by his familial relations in Sudan. Foreign influence security concerns under Guideline B are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01688.h1


Criminal Conduct, Financial

02/24/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial security and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01423.h1


Financial

02/21/2020

In addition to his failures to timely file his federal income tax returns for 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2018, Applicant had seven delinquent accounts, including unpaid federal income taxes, totaling approximately $21,417. As of the date the record closed, he had resolved only two of those delinquent accounts, and he failed to provide documentary proof regarding the dates he finally filed his federal income tax returns, or if he had installment agreements with the Internal Revenue Service with respect to his unpaid federal income taxes. Applicant's actions, or inaction, continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02166.h1


Criminal

02/21/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns involving criminal conduct and drug involvement and substance misuse. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02046.h1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

02/20/2020

Applicant's parents and siblings are resident citizens of Iraq, and several family members are or were employed by the Iraqi government. Applicant has not adequately mitigated the heightened risk of undue foreign influence that exists because of his close ties to his family members in Iraq. Foreign preference concerns were not established. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02542.h1


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

02/20/2020

Applicant’s parents and siblings are resident citizens of Iraq, and several family members are or were employed by the Iraqi government. Applicant has not adequately mitigated the heightened risk of undue foreign influence that exists because of his close ties to his family members in Iraq. Foreign preference concerns were not established. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 18-02542.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

02/20/2020

Applicant mitigated the Guideline F, financial considerations security concerns, but failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02107.h1


Financial

02/20/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01796.h1


Foreign Influence

02/20/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01782.h1


Financial

02/20/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01489.h1


Financial

02/19/2020

Applicant has seven delinquent accounts totaling approximately $15,147. As of the date the record closed in February 2020, none of them had been addressed by Applicant, even though he promised that he would start doing so in the near future – nearly one year ago. Applicant's actions, or inaction, continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02397.h1


Financial

02/19/2020

Applicant mitigated the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01965.h1


Personal Conduct; Drugs; Criminal Conduct

02/19/2020

Applicant possessed and used marijuana and MDMA (ecstasy) while holding a security clearance. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00576.h1


Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct, Foreign Influence

02/19/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his criminal conduct, personal conduct, and foreign family members. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00525.h1


Use of Information Technology; Personal Conduct

02/19/2020

It was alleged Applicant failed to comply with rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations pertaining to information technology systems and he gave false or incomplete answers on two Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIPs). He mitigated the use of information technology and personal conduct security concerns. Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-00557.h1


Financial, Drugs

02/19/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines F (financial considerations) and H (drug involvement and substance misuse). Applicant has made arrangements to pay all of his state taxes for the years 2013 through 2015. He had previously filed his state and federal tax returns, as required. He has resolved his delinquent medical and consumer debts. In addition, he stopped using marijuana in 2017 and expressed a credible intent not to use it in the future. Applicant provided significant evidence in mitigation. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01278.h1


Drugs

02/18/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by her marijuana use. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00527.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/18/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his history of financial delinquencies and deliberate falsification of his security clearance application. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01671.h1


Financial

02/14/2020

Applicant defaulted on federal student loans that now total $65,394; on two medical debts totaling $410; and on a $3,008 judgment. While the judgment and medical debts have been paid, and she has a repayment plan for her federal student loans, concerns about her financial situation have not been adequately mitigated. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-02425.h1


Foreign Influence; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

02/14/2020

Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct and personal conduct security concerns, but he did not mitigate the foreign influence security concerns involving his ties to Morocco. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02041.h1


Sexual Behavior; Information Technology; Personal Conduct

02/14/2020

Applicant viewed pornographic images on government and employer-owned computers intermittently from 1998 to 2018. He mitigated Guideline D (sexual behavior) security concerns, and he refuted Guideline E (personal conduct) security concerns. However, Guideline M (use of information technology) security concerns are not mitigated. Access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01753.h1


Financial

02/13/2020

Applicant has nine delinquent accounts totaling approximately $24,176. Several of those debts became delinquent as early as 2014, and until after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued, none of them were addressed by Applicant. Although she initially claimed that she was unaware of any debts other than the delinquent automobile loan, she subsequently acknowledged that she became aware of her other delinquent debts when she reviewed a credit report in 2015. Of the nine accounts alleged in the SOR, she made relatively modest payments of $390 and $127 to resolve two delinquent medical accounts in May 2019, and she made a $50 payment on another account in November 2019. She claimed that other delinquent accounts were "in negotiation," but that negotiation process was never explained and has apparently produced no results. Applicant's actions continue to cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-00939.h1


Financial

02/13/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns related to her financial delinquencies, and unfiled Federal and state tax returns. Her request for national security eligibility and access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02240.h1


Drugs

02/12/2020

Applicant used marijuana two to four times per week from August 2014 to December 2016, and once in October 2017 and January 2018. Although he no longer associates with individuals who use marijuana, he has failed to convincingly commit to abstaining from marijuana in the future. Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-01131.h1


Drugs

02/12/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-02025.h1


Guideline F

02/12/2020

Applicant argues that the Judge was biased against her. She contends that the Judge characterized her as someone who intentionally did not pay her debts, which was inaccurate. AJudge is presumed to be unbiased, and a party who argues otherwise has a heavy burden of persuasion. We have examined the Decision in light of the record as a whole and find nothing that would likely convince reasonable person that the Judge lacked the requisite impartiality. Applicant has not met her heavy burden of persuasion on this issue. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02087.a1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse; Personal Conduct

02/11/2020

Applicant used marijuana, a controlled substance, with varying frequency, from about 1994 until at least May 2019, on nine or ten occasions, generally at parties or when he was at golf tournaments with others who were also smoking it. When he completed his Standard Form 86, he reported that he had used marijuana on only two occasions, and that he had no intentions of using it in the future. However, he continued using marijuana for several more months. While he now acknowledges his past drug involvement, he has only been abstinent a mere eight months. Although he now claims to have no intention of future drug involvement and substance misuse, he stated that same intention in February 2019, and he broke that pledge with continued marijuana use. Thus, the significance of that newer pledge is greatly reduced. Applicant has never received treatment and counseling as a result of his illegal use of controlled substances. Applicant's actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02454.h1


Foreign Influence

02/10/2020

Applicant, on his own and through his spouse, has significant ties to Saudi Arabia. Applicant also has ties to Egypt through his father, who resides in the country and has a film studio. Applicant attended college in the United States on a $200,000 scholarship from the Saudi Arabian government. He has yet to establish longstanding and deep ties to the United States. The foreign influence security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-02091.h1


Foreign Influence

02/10/2020

Applicant, on his own and through his spouse, has significant ties to Saudi Arabia. Applicant also has ties to Egypt through his father, who resides in the country and has a film studio. Applicant attended college in the United States on a $200,000 scholarship from the Saudi Arabian government. He has yet to establish longstanding and deep ties to the United States. The foreign influence security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-02091.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/10/2020

Applicant defaulted on some $50,366 in credit-card debt on four accounts. In December 2019, he reached settlement agreements for two of the debts, but he has not made any payments. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Personal conduct security concerns were not established because Applicant did not deliberately falsify his security clearance application (SCA). Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01508.h1


Financial

02/10/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F. In 2017 and 2018, Applicant defaulted on four debts totaling approximately $18,000. Applicant provided substantial evidence in mitigation. National security eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01663.h1


Financial; Foreign Influence

02/10/2020

Applicant has addressed all the alleged past-due indebtedness, and the late tax filing. Her family in the Philippines poses no security risk. Access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00805.h1


Personal Conduct, Financial Considerations, Criminal Conduct

02/10/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines E, F, and J. Applicant was fired by her employer for her misuse of her company credit card, theft of company credit cards issued to other employees, and theft of cash from a co-worker. She also had tax delinquencies and a number of unresolved debts. She presented insufficient evidence in mitigation. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00516.h1


Financial Considerations; Personal Conduct

02/10/2020

Applicant's excessive indebtedness and poor misconduct has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00434.h1


Financial

02/10/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns posed by her troubled finances. Eligibility to continue working in a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-01947.h1


Financial

02/07/2020

Applicant gambled for years, resulting in financial losses that contributed to his two decisions to file for bankruptcy. He continued to gamble up to the night before his hearing when he lost $3,000 gambling. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02822.h1


Financial

02/07/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. He had unresolved delinquent debt due to circumstances beyond his control, but he presented sufficient information for purposes of mitigation at this time. Eligibility for a security clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01951.h1


Drugs

02/07/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his illegal use of marijuana and marijuana extracts while holding a security clearance. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01098.h1


Financial

02/07/2020

Applicant provided insufficient corroborating documentation about his efforts to resolve seven delinquent debts alleged on the statement of reasons totaling $100,242. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00818.h1


Foreign Influence; Financial; Personal Conduct

02/07/2020

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence concerns, but failed to mitigate the financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns based on irresponsible financial decisions and numerous instances of false, inconsistent, and deceptive information he provided throughout the security clearance process. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02805.h1


Guideline F

02/07/2020

In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge miscalculated the combined amount of the two unaddressed debts, noting the Judge stated in his analysis that Applicant “has yet to address two past-due debts totaling over $20,000.” Applicant's background interview indicates those two debts were delinquent in amounts totaling well over $20,000. However, his most recent credit report reflects that the combined amount of the two debts is nearly $18,000. Even though the Judge may have miscalculated the combined amount of these debts, this error was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01869.a1


Guideline B

02/07/2020

Applicant acknowledges that his wife and parents do live in Syria, but notes they are not affiliated with the Syrian Government. He also argues that his allegiance is to the UnitedStates and that he is not at risk of foreign coercion. His arguments amount to a challenge to theway in which the Judge weighed the evidence and are insufficient to show the Judge reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01556.a1


Guideline F

02/07/2020

The language that Applicant is challenging is not a finding the Judge made regarding him. Rather, the challenged language is part of the Judge's quote from the Concern Paragraph inGuideline F. The Judge cited the Concern Paragraph to set the stage for his analysis of the facts in the case. To the extent Applicant may be arguing that the SOR does not allege security concerns, we note the Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven circumstances under any of its guidelines and an applicant's security eligibility. Direct or objective evidence of nexus is not required. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00520.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/06/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his late income tax filings, his more than $50,000 in past-due taxes and other debts, his termination for cause from employment with the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2014, and his lack of complete candor on December 2013 and June 2017 security clearance applications (SCAs). Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02404.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/06/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his late income tax filings, his more than $50,000 in past-due taxes and other debts, his termination for cause from employment with the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2014, and his lack of complete candor on December 2013 and June 2017 security clearance applications (SCAs). Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02404.h1


Financial

02/06/2020

Applicant provided insufficient corroborating documentation about his efforts to resolve 11 of 13 delinquent debts alleged in the statement of reasons totaling $31,617. Financial considerations trustworthiness concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-01626.h1


Financial

02/06/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01542.h1


Drugs; Alcohol; Personal Conduct

02/06/2020

Applicant mitigated Guideline G (alcohol consumption) security concerns. However, he failed to mitigate security concerns arising under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse) and E (personal conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02792.h1


Financial

02/06/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02372.h1


Handling Protected Information; Personal Conduct

02/06/2020

Applicant's 2016 disclosure of sensitive personnel information to another employee generates security concerns under the guidelines governing the handling of protected information and personal conduct, which he failed to mitigate. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00184.h1


Financial

02/06/2020

Applicant's financial problems resulted, in part, from circumstances beyond his control. I find that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. The financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 18-02270.h1


Financial

02/06/2020

Applicant failed to present sufficient information to mitigate the security concern stemming from his ten delinquent debts. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 18-02131.h1


Guideline F

02/06/2020

The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file his Federal income tax returns for 2014,2015, 2016, and 2018 as required. The Judge found against Applicant on that allegation. In his appeal brief, Applicant raises two issues that do not establish the Judge committed any harmful error. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01213.a1


Guideline F

02/06/2020

If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Board must consider whether the error was harmful or harmless. As noted above, Department Counsel has not challenged any of the Judge's findings of fact or conclusions. Department Counsel has not identified any derogatory information in the background interview possibly excluded from consideration that would have likely affected the outcome of the case. Nor is it apparent to us that had the Judge considered all of the potentially derogatory information in the background interview she would have reached a different result. Department Counsel has failed to establish that the Judge's erroneous evidentiary ruling constituted harmful error. The Judge's decision is sustainable. Favorable decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01174.a1


Financial

02/05/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns raised by his tax issues. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02207.h1


Financial

02/05/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01661.h1


Financial

02/05/2020

Applicant has yet to address much of her admitted, substantial, past-due indebtedness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01660.h1


Financial

02/05/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00843.h1


Drugs, Personal Conduct

02/05/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the drug involvement and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02398.h1


Foreign Influence

02/05/2020

Applicant mitigated the foreign influence security concerns raised by his ties to family members who are citizens and residents of Egypt, and his brother who is a resident of the United Arab Emirates. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02345.h1


Guideline F

02/05/2020

Applicant's contention that the Judge's decision was “solely based” on dated financial deficiencies is simply not accurate. The Judge's adverse findings include recent financial concerns, such as Applicant's past-due Federal taxes for 2017 and his past-due state taxes for2014, 2016, and 2017. Also, past and present financial deficiencies are relevant considerations in assessing an applicant's security clearance eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02980.a1


Financial

02/04/2020

Applicant's financial problems were primarily the result of conditions beyond his control. He acted responsibly under the circumstances and took significant action to implement a plan to pay his debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-02204.h1


Financial

02/03/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by his history of delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01432.h1


Guideline F

02/03/2020

Based on our review of the record, we conclude the Judge's material findings and conclusions that Applicant's decision to leave the job in question was voluntary are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00909.a1


Financial

02/01/2020

Applicant failed to pay for defaulted student loans that he had cosigned despite having the financial means to do so. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01865.h1


Drugs

01/31/2020

Applicant used marijuana from October 2012 through at least July 2019. Her use and purchase of marijuana since October 2016 was with a medical marijuana card. She intends to continue to use marijuana daily to treat her medical conditions as long as she has a medical marijuana card. Her drug use violates federal law and is contrary to Department of Defense (DOD) policy. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-01889.h1


Drugs

01/31/2020

Applicant used marijuana from October 2012 through at least July 2019. Her use and purchase of marijuana since October 2016 was with a medical marijuana card. She intends to continue to use marijuana daily to treat her medical conditions as long as she has a medical marijuana card. Her drug use violates federal law and is contrary to Department of Defense (DOD) policy. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-01889.h1


Financial

01/31/2020

Applicant has limited communication ability and cannot manage his own financial affairs. He has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his history of delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01826.h1


Financial

01/31/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01756.h1


Financial

01/31/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file federal income tax returns and pay delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01206.h1


Drugs, Criminal Conduct

01/31/2020

Applicant has a 20-year history of marijuana use, and he used marijuana after submitting his security clearance application. Security concerns under Guideline H, drug involvement and substance misuse, are not mitigated. Applicant's 2007 arrest for marijuana possession is dated, but mitigation of the security concern under Guideline J, criminal conduct, is not established, due to his subsequent marijuana use. Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01992.h1


Personal Conduct; Financial

01/31/2020

Applicant mitigated security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), but he failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00337.h1


Financial

01/31/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns involving her failure to file federal income tax returns, as required, and delinquent consumer debt. Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00219.h1


Financial

01/30/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his multiple Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions and delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01567.h1


Financial

01/30/2020

Applicant did not file his 2015 through 2017 federal and state income tax returns when they were due, and he did not pay his 2014 federal income taxes when they were due. All returns are now filed, and there are no taxes owed. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01343.h1


Financial

01/30/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his problematic financial history. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 18-01723.h1


Guideline F

01/30/2020

Applicant reasonably believed the record would remain open until October 18, 2019,and a review would be conducted on that date to determine whether it should remain open for a longer period. Applicant was not definitively informed the record would close on October 18th. Applicant reports that he sent the Judge an email on October 18th, indicated he did not receive a response to his email, and assumed the record would be left open while he was unemployed. We conclude the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge to determine what occurred on October 18th and then take whatever action is appropriate in accordance with the Directive. The case is remanded. CASE NO: 19-01011.a1


Guideline H; Guideline E

01/30/2020

We find no reason to conclude that the Judge exhibited bias against Applicant. For example, her negative credibility determination was founded upon substantial record evidence ofApplicant's inconsistent statements rather than upon inexplicable animus. We have long noted that inconsistent statements can impugn a witness's credibility. Moreover, there is no error in theJudge's having declined to extend significant weight to AE H, insofar as its conclusions reasonably appear to have relied upon a deliberate minimization of Applicant's security significant conduct. In any event, the Judge's analysis certainly does not constitute an attack upon Applicant for merely having submitted the document in the first place. One need not resort to allegations of judicial bias in order to account for adverse findings and conclusions that are consistent with the evidence viewed as a totality. Finally, we find nothing significant in theJudge's use of the word “claims” to describe some of Applicant's testimony. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02722.a1


Financial; Foreign Influence

01/29/2020

Applicant failed to timely file federal income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2017 and state returns for tax years 2011 through 2017. He also failed to timely pay his state taxes for tax years 2011-2017. He addressed his delinquent income tax returns, tax debt, and a delinquent credit card debt after he submitted his 2016 security clearance application. His recent efforts are insufficient to establish a track record of financial responsibility. He failed to demonstrate good judgment, reliability, and willingness to comply with the law. The financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Foreign influence security concerns are mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02096.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse; Personal Conduct

01/28/2020

Applicant's use of marijuana on various occasions from January 2016 to January 2019 while holding a security clearance has not been mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01981.h1


Foreign Influence; Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

01/28/2020

Applicant's foreign connections to China do not pose a security risk. His history of marijuana use, from February 2017 to February 2018, while holding a security clearance or holding a sensitive position has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01666.h1


Alcohol Consumption; Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse; Criminal Conduct

01/28/2020

Applicant's history of alcohol abuse, involving five DUI's, his use of marijuana from 2008 to 2017; and his drug related arrest for Possession of Methamphetamines, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Eligibility for security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00583.h1


01/28/2020

Financial

Applicant's history of delinquent debts and tax indebtedness has been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00342.h1


Financial

01/28/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02140.h1


Financial

01/28/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant defaulted on a credit-card debt and a medical bill. He provided evidence in mitigation. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-01328.h1


Foreign Influence

01/28/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his foreign family members and property. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00832.h1


Drugs

01/28/2020

Applicant mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns due to the passage of time. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00732.h1


Handling Protected Information; Personal Conduct

01/28/2020

The Guideline K security concern is mitigated by the passage of time with no indication of repeated conduct. Applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate the Guideline E security concern arising from his use of countermeasures during an October 2017 polygraph examination. Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02315.h1


Alcohol, Financial, and Personal Conduct

01/28/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Adjudicative Guidelines G (alcohol consumption), F (financial considerations), and E (personal conduct). Applicant's evidence failed to mitigate these security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01181.h1


Financial

01/27/2020

Applicant's failure to file her Federal and state income tax returns in a timely fashion for tax year 2016, and her failure to pay her taxes for tax year 2016 has not been mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02142.h1


Financial

01/27/2020

Applicant's excessive indebtedness resulting in numerous charge-off accounts totaling approximately $62,000; and his failure to file his Federal and state income tax returns in a timely fashion for tax years 2015, 2016, and 2017, have not been mitigated. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02032.h1


Financial

01/27/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant defaulted on four bank debts. She provided insufficient evidence in mitigation. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-01993.h1


Financial Considerations

01/27/2020

Applicant did not provide sufficient information to overcome the security concerns raised by her failure to timely file her federal income tax returns for three of the last four tax years. She also did not address her unpaid debts despite the passage of nearly seven years while having the resources to do so. Applicant's request for eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01850.h1


Drugs, Alcohol, Personal Conduct

01/27/2020

This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines H, G, and E. Applicant submitted insufficient information to mitigate security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01741.h1


Financial

01/27/2020

Applicant did not submit sufficient information to mitigate his history of financial problems, which includes delinquent debts and defaulted student loans. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01534.h1


Financial

01/27/2020

Applicant has addressed all of the admitted past-due indebtedness. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01221.h1


Alcohol

01/27/2020

Applicant has two alcohol-related convictions over an eight year period, for the second of which he is still on probation. He continues to consume alcohol. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01064.h1


Financial

01/27/2020

Applicant has yet to address much of her admitted, substantial, past-due indebtedness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00435.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/27/2020

Applicant's delinquent taxes and other indebtedness have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. He also falsified his security clearance application in response to questions concerning his financial history. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00255.h1


Financial Considerations

01/27/2020

Applicant's failure to file his Federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in a timely fashion; and his failure to pay his other miscellaneous delinquent debt, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02996.h1


Foreign Influence

01/27/2020

Applicant's foreign family connections in Afghanistan, that include his wife, eight children, and nine siblings and their families, are significant, and do pose a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion, that can create a potential conflict of interest between Applicant's obligation to protect classified or sensitive information or technology, and his desire to help his foreign family members. Mitigation has not been sufficiently established. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01801.h1


Financial

01/24/2020

Applicant failed to present sufficient information to mitigate the security concern stemming from his ten delinquent debts. Eligibility denied. CASE NO: 18-00901.h1


Guideline F

01/24/2020

Applicant contends that he was not able to respond to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) on time because he was on military orders. We note that the FORM was sent toApplicant on July 10, 2019, after which he requested an extension of time in which to respond. Decision at 2. DOHA granted this request, giving Applicant until September 16, 2019, to provide evidence. Nevertheless, Applicant submitted nothing in response to the FORM, even as he had submitted no documentary evidence along with his Answer to the SOR. We find no reason to believe that Applicant was denied an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation. To the extent that he is raising an issue that he was denied due process, we resolve it adversely to him. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01339.a1


Guideline F; Guideline E

01/24/2020

At a hearing, a Judge may direct an applicant to answer relevant questions. Applicant's husband did testify after Applicant at the hearing. The Judge explained to Applicant that she could just say she does not know the answer when that is the case but that he would not allow her husband to testify through her. Applicant's contention that the Judge instructed her to answer questions, instead of letting her husband answer them, fails to establish any error. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01155.a1


Guideline F

01/24/2020

Directive ¶ 4.4 provides that security clearance adjudications “shall cease upon termination of the applicant's need for access to classified information,” with exceptions not pertinent to this case. Neither party raised the issue of jurisdiction on appeal. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in the proceedings, including sua sponte by theAppeal Board. In this case, it appears there is an issue as to whether Applicant's need for an industrial security clearance terminated prior to the date of his security clearance hearing. The favorable decision is remanded. CASE NO: 17-03083.a1


Foreign Influence

01/24/2020

Applicant's ties to India 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: 19-02457.h1


Drugs

01/24/2020

Applicant went about 30 years without using illegal drugs, and then resumed sporadic marijuana use in about 2015. She realized that her marijuana use was inconsistent with the behavior of a responsible adult, senior executive in her company, and potential holder of a security clearance, and she has not used any illegal drugs since August 2018. She credibly testified that she will not use any illegal drugs in the future. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01960.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/24/2020

Applicant refuted the allegation that he falsified his security clearance application. He has mitigated the security concern raised by his arrest for assault and battery on a family member, but he has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his Chapter 7 bankruptcy and delinquent student loans. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01726.h1


Financial Considerations

01/24/2020

Applicant owes more than $66,500 in delinquent taxes for tax years 2012 through 2016. He is more than $33,000 delinquent on his mortgage and is delinquent on two automobile loan accounts. He filed for bankruptcy protection in October 2011. He has made little progress toward resolving his past-due balances. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00659.h1


Alcohol; Financial Considerations

01/24/2020

The security concerns raised by Applicant's 2016 alcohol-related arrest are mitigated. Applicant did not provide sufficient information to overcome the security concerns raised by his financial problems. Applicant's request for eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00075.h1


Guideline F; Guideline E

01/23/2020

Applicant denies that his SCA omissions were deliberate, arguing that there were multiple windows open on his computer screen at the time he completed his SCA and that he became confused. When an applicant denies that a false statement was intentional, the Judge should evaluate his mens rea in light of the entirety of the record evidence. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01545.a1


Guideline H

01/23/2020

Concerning the comment in Applicant's interview summary, this represents Applicant's response to the investigator's questions, not the investigator's considered opinion as to Applicant's eligibility for a clearance. Even if an investigator offered such an opinion it would not bind DOHA in its evaluation of a case. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00821.a1


Guideline F

01/23/2020

Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains a document that is not included in the record. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00307.a1


Financial

01/23/2020

Applicant's finances were damaged by unemployment and underemployment, resulting in a substantial amount of delinquent debt. After she obtained employment in October 2017 with a Department of Defense (DOD) contractor, she employed two credit restoration companies (CRC) to ensure the validity and amounts of her debts. She established a track record of debt payments to address her student loans and two other delinquent debts. She mitigated security concerns arising under Guideline F (financial considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-02282.h1


Financial

01/23/2020

In addition to his failure to timely file his 2016 federal income tax return, Applicant had ten delinquent accounts totaling nearly $31,500, as alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). Moreover, although not alleged in the SOR, Applicant also owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approximately $9,000 in unpaid taxes associated with that tax year. As of the date the SOR was issued, he had not resolved any of those alleged delinquent accounts, and he failed to provide documentary proof regarding the date he finally filed his 2016 federal income tax return. He finally addressed some of his creditors, made some minimum payments, eliminated his child support arrearage, and filed his 2016 federal income tax return. Applicant's actions continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-00985.h1


Personal Conduct; Sexual Behavior

01/22/2020

Applicant conducted Internet searches for pornographic images of underage teen females between 2002 and 2003, and he had sexual contact with his then-infant daughter in late 2005. In approximately 2006, he attempted to lure a neighbor’s 15 or 16-year-old daughter to his basement with the intent of kissing and, if she consented, also fondling her. A 2018 clinical evaluation was negative for pedophilia, but it is undermined by Applicant’s failure to be fully candid about his sexual behaviors with the clinician. Applicant also misrepresented the circumstances of his sexual misconduct involving his daughter during a pre-polygraph interview for another government agency (AGA). Clearance eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-01511.h1


Financial Considerations

01/22/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the guideline due to the untimely filing of Federal and state income tax returns from 2011 to 2017 and unresolved delinquent debt. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01596.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

01/22/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The Guideline E, personal conduct security concerns were refuted. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01828.h1


Financial

01/22/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01764.h1


Financial

01/22/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01102.h1


Financial, Personal Conduct

01/22/2020

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate financial security concerns arising from his delinquent debts and personal conduct security concerns arising from his failure to disclose any delinquencies on his security clearance application. Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01001.h1


Financial

01/22/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00674.h1


Financial

01/22/2020

Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns arising from her delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00669.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct; Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

01/22/2020

Applicant has much greater connections to the United States than to Nigeria. He has not used his Nigerian passport since August 2016, and he offered to renounce his Nigerian citizenship. He paid his delinquent debts. Guidelines B (foreign influence), C (foreign preference), and F (financial considerations) security concerns are mitigated. Applicant engaged in domestic violence involving his spouse in 2004, 2007, and 2019. He is on probation. Personal conduct security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00392.h1


Financial

01/21/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file federal and state income tax returns over an extended period of time. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01130.h1


01/21/2020

Financial; Personal Conduct

Although Applicant has made some progress in reducing his delinquent debt, it is too soon to conclude that his finances are under control, given the length of time that his debts were delinquent, and the recency with which he initiated the payment plans. Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern. Lingering concerns about Applicant's judgment and credibility, related to his explanation for failing to disclose income to the state's unemployment compensation authority compel me to conclude that he has not mitigated the personal conduct security concern. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-01883.h1


Financial

01/17/2020

Applicant has not mitigated security concerns raised by her failure to resolve her substantial federal and other student-loan debts. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-02146.h1


Personal Conduct

01/17/2020

Applicant previously served as a teacher in a county school system from August 2004 until July 2014. He admittedly had conflicts and disagreements with his principal and assistant principal regarding his duties and responsibilities as a schoolteacher; and some of his teaching methods. Nevertheless, despite those conflicts and disagreements, he was retained in his position for a decade. There are allegations, based on accusations against Applicant, of misconduct reportedly made by school management versus the explanations by Applicant. One allegation was that either the school principal or the superintendent of schools recommended the school board dismiss Applicant from his teaching position. There is zero evidence that such a recommendation was made by the principal or the superintendent, or that any such recommendation was actually made to, or received by, the school board. There is no essential documentation, such as school disciplinary records, school personnel performance evaluations, school reports of investigation describing the alleged incidents, statements of witnesses, school board records, or records of the superintendent of schools, upon which the accusations were based or to support the allegations. Applicant's actions no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is granted. CASE NO: 19-00555.h1


Drug Involvement; Personal Conduct

01/17/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the drug involvement while holding a security clearance, but has mitigated the security concern under personal conduct. He did not intentionally falsify his 2011 SCA. He has not provided sufficient information to carry his burden. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 18-02338.h1


Financial

01/16/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his failure to timely file his federal and state income tax returns and pay the taxes due. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01431.h1


Financial

01/15/2020

Applicant presented sufficient documentation to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concern stemming from her problematic financial history. Eligibility granted. CASE NO: 18-01147.h1


Guideline E; Guideline F

01/15/2020

The Appeal Board has previously noted that it is reasonable to expect that an applicant should present corroborating documentation of actions taken to resolve debts. The evidence thatApplicant presented generally lacks such corroborating documentation. Moreover, as the Judge noted Applicant's case in mitigation primarily amounts to a promise to pay the debts in the future, which we have previously stated, is not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01599.a1


Guideline E

01/15/2020

Applicant argues that the whole-person analysis is flawed. The Judge's adverse decision rested on his conclusion that Applicant failed to demonstrate the candor required of someone who holds a security clearance. This conclusion is consistent with the record viewed as a whole. The Judge's whole person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3,in that he considered the totality of the evidence in reaching his decision. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02925.a1


Financial

01/15/2020

Applicant has six delinquent student-loan accounts totaling approximately $71,955. He intentionally chose to ignore one student loan that was charged off, claiming that he is no longer responsible for it; and he did so with another loan because he intended to wait for “debt forgiveness” until the debt is written off. And, although he claimed that he had insufficient funds to maintain his accounts in a current status, he managed to take several personal trips overseas, outside of government travel, in 2016 and 2017. Moreover, he later claimed to have sufficient funds to make a lump-sum payment of $35,992 in December 2019, something he failed to do. As of the date the record closed, he had not resolved any of his delinquent accounts. Applicant's actions continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-01503.h1


Guideline F

01/15/2020

The Judge's adverse decision is sustainable on this record. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as filing tax returns or paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02872.a1


Guideline F

01/15/2020

The government is not stopped from making an adverse clearance determination despite prior favorable adjudications. This is especially true in cases, such as this, in which the adverse decision is based on concerns that have persisted since the earlier determination. Applicant's argument is not enough to show that the decision of the Judge was arbitrary,capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02867.a1


Financial

01/14/2020

Applicant has done little to demonstrate that she has addressed her substantial, admitted past-due indebtedness. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01404.h1


Drugs

01/14/2020

Applicant used marijuana 20~25 times over a period of five years, while granted access to classified information. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01187.h1


Drugs

01/14/2020

Applicant used marijuana twice over 18 years ago; and once more unintentionally, over two years ago. He self-reported this unintentional usage. Applicant has also eschewed any future drug involvement. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-00316.h1


Guideline J; Guideline E; Guideline G

01/14/2020

Government Exhibit 7 contains 40 police department call-log sheets. Applicant challenges 12 of the calls, noting that some involved the conduct of his ex-wife instead of his conduct and some do not involve any questionable conduct, e.g., an unintended 911 cell call or a duplicate call-log sheet. First, we interpret the Judge's finding as not being limited to calls to the police department about Applicant's questionable conduct but rather to encompass all domestic disturbance calls originating from his residence. Second, given the number of call log sheets inGE 7, the Judge apparently disregarded three of them in making his finding. Third, Applicant admitted in responding to the SOR that the police were called to his home at least 25 times for domestic disturbances since 2010. Fourth, any mistakes the Judge may have made regarding the number or nature of the challenged calls amount to harmless error because they would not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02581.a1


Financial

01/13/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts and his failure to timely file his federal and state income tax returns and pay the taxes due. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00806.h1


Guideline F

01/13/2020

Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding the four debts at issue were either unresolved or not sufficiently resolved. In general, her arguments rely on the new evidence that we cannot consider. From our review of the record, the Judge's material findings and conclusions of a security concern are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00379.a1


Foreign Influence; Financial Considerations

01/13/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his personal ties to Poland. He did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his financial problems. Accordingly, his request for continued eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01582.h1


Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse; Personal Conduct

01/10/2020

Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency, from about January 1975 until at least September 2018, for a period of over four decades. He generally used marijuana while alone or when he was at the beach with others who were partying and having a good time. After a vehicle incident in 2016, he was directed to undergo a urinalysis. The test results were positive for marijuana. In compliance with the employer's zero-tolerance drug policy, Applicant was immediately terminated from his employment. Nevertheless, he continued to use marijuana until at least September 2018. When he completed his SF 86 in January 2019, and was interviewed by a U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator several times thereafter, Applicant repeatedly falsely denied any negative employment issues or drug issues. It was only after he was confronted by the OPM investigator in May 2019 with known facts that Applicant finally confessed. Applicant has never received treatment and counseling as a result of his illegal use of drugs or controlled substances. He acknowledged that his wrongful use of marijuana caused issues at home with his wife. Applicant's actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02598.h1


Financial

01/10/2020

Applicant had four delinquent accounts, including three mortgages or second mortgages, and one unidentified type of account, totaling approximately $243,000. He claimed that he had insufficient funds to maintain those accounts in a current status. As of the date the record closed, he had not resolved any of those delinquent accounts. Applicant's actions continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Eligibility is denied. CASE NO: 19-02298.h1


Personal Conduct; Security Violations

01/10/2020

Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by his cheating on a qualification examination and mishandling protected information. Clearance is granted. CASE NO: 19-01602.h1


Financial

01/09/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns under the above guideline. He did not timely file his federal and state income tax returns for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018 until 2019. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01938.h1


Guideline H

01/09/2020

Applicant contends the Judge's finding that his marijuana use while holding a security clearance was done “in ignorance” is not representative of the statement he provided. This contention does not merit any relief. In responding to the FORM, Applicant stated, “I would like to clarify, that while the use did occur while in possession of a security clearance, the added offense described in Guideline H, paragraph 25(f) was committed in ignorance.” Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01539.a1


Drugs

01/09/2020

Applicant possessed and used marijuana on several occasions from about October 2008 to July 2018. Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) trustworthiness concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. CASE NO: 19-00995.h1


Foreign Influence, Financial

01/09/2020

Applicant mitigated the security concerns about his connections to Colombia under Guideline B, foreign influence and about his finances under Guideline F, financial considerations. Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information is granted. CASE NO: 19-00515.h1


Guideline F

01/09/2020

For the purpose of making a whole-person assessment, Applicant notes that he is in compliance with all but one of the adjudicative guidelines. Applicant's arguments are not enough to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary,capricious, or contrary to law. Moreover, the Directive does not require that security concerns arising from admitted or proven SOR allegations under one or more of the guidelines be weighed or balanced against non-alleged guidelines in making a whole-person assessment. Such a comparison of alleged verses non-alleged guidelines is not a meaningful consideration in assessing security clearance eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00351.a1


Guideline F

01/09/2020

Applicant's appeal brief contains documents that are not in the record. In general, we cannot consider new evidence on appeal. However, we will considered such evidence concerning threshold issues of jurisdiction or due process. From our review of this assignment of error, we conclude that Applicant's assertions in his appeal brief are not sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that he in fact emailed or mailed to DOHA the documents in question. We note that some of those documents pertain to payments that were made after the decision was issued. To the extent that Applicant relies on evidence that was created after the record closed,we cannot consider it. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00108.a1


Drugs; Alcohol; Financial

01/09/2020

Applicant presented some important mitigating information; however, he failed to fully mitigate security concerns arising under Guidelines F (financial considerations), G (alcohol consumption), and H (drug involvement and substance misuse). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-01212.h2


Guideline F; Guideline G

01/09/2020

Since we only instructed the Judge to reopen the record on remand for the purpose of providing the parties the opportunity to submit evidence on the tax filing issue, we cannotconclude it was error for the Judge to decline to consider evidence that Applicant submitted onremand regarding other issues, such as the Federal tax debt. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 17-03024.a2


Guideline I; Guideline G; Guideline E

01/09/2020

During a month period in 2001, Applicant's conduct resulted in four separate fires. Asa result of these fires, felony and misdemeanor charges were brought against Applicant. InOctober 2002, he was sentenced to 12-24 months in jail. He was released from jail in October 2003. In 2014, he completed a 12-week psycho-educational program in anger management after he was involved in an altercation at work that resulted in him being convicted of assault and battery. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 15-04269.a1


Financial

01/08/2020

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01231.h1


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct

01/08/2020

From about 2012 to 2014, Applicant solicited prostitutes five or six times while he held a security clearance. Sexual behavior and personal conduct security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-00065.h1


Guideline F

01/08/2020

An applicant who entrusts serious financial responsibilities to a spouse with an addiction to gambling and who apparently exercises little to no oversight of her conduct can fairly be described as indifferent to his financial obligations. Although a Judge is not required todiscuss each and every piece of record evidence in a file, he or she cannot ignore, disregard, or fail to discuss significant record evidence that a reasonable person could expect to be taken into account in reaching a fair and reasoned decision. Favorable decision is reversed. CASE NO: 18-02914.a1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/08/2020

Applicant failed to timely file her federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2009, 2010, and 2014. For most of the previous 10 years, she has owed delinquent taxes beginning with tax year 2007. She did not prove she was unable to timely file her tax returns or make greater progress sooner on paying her tax debt. Personal conduct security concerns are refuted; however, financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-00110.h1


Financial

01/07/2020

Applicant failed to resolve a large number of delinquent student loans and debts. Resulting financial security concerns were not mitigated. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01394.h1


Financial

01/07/2020

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from her delinquent debts. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01236.h1


Financial

01/07/2020

Applicant has a long history of failing to file Federal and state income tax returns and failing to pay Federal and state income taxes. He did not mitigate the resulting financial security concerns. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. CASE NO: 18-02870.h1


Financial

01/06/2020

Applicant has not mitigated trustworthiness concerns raised by his indebtedness. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. CASE NO: 19-01492.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/06/2020

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns raised by delinquent debts, and the personal conduct allegations were unfounded. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is granted. CASE NO: 18-02217.h1


Financial; Personal Conduct

01/03/2020

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial delinquencies and personal conduct. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01326.h1


Drugs; Personal Conduct

01/03/2020

Applicant has not mitigated security concerns raised by his marijuana use and lack of candor about it during the security clearance process, nor his 2012 and 2017 alcohol-related misconduct. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-00887.h1


Guideline I

01/03/2020

At his hearing, Applicant testified “The most recent one, I came out of my building at the end of work day at [work site] and I saw the clouds starting to circle over the top of our main office building. I requested they move, and they did.” The Judge's analysis failed to consider significant aspects of Applicant's case. Although a Judge is not expected to discuss every piece of record evidence, which would be virtually impossible, he or she should address evidence that a reasonable person would expect to see discussed regarding a matter of national security such as a person's access to classified information. Favorable decision reversed. CASE NO: 18-02085.a1


Financial

01/02/2020

Applicant owes more than $34,000 in delinquent consumer credit-card debt and $2,729 in medical collection debt. While unexpected medical expenses may have caused or contributed to his financial problems, he has made little progress toward resolving his past-due balances. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01683.h1


Financial

01/02/2020

Applicant filed his federal income tax returns after their due dates for tax years 2011, 2012, and 2014. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had no record of him filing a return for tax year 2018 as of May 2019. Since July 2016, Applicant has been repaying his past-due income taxes for tax year 2014, but he has made little progress toward resolving more than $69,000 in consumer-credit debts charged off or placed for collection. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 19-01054.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 2020
Last updated 07 Oct 2020