Small DOHA Seal

2000 Industrial Security Clearance Decisions

 

These 62 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

Financial; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

12/22/2000

Board does not weigh the record evidence de novo. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of financial difficulties and her falsification of a security questionnaire are not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

12/19/2000

There is rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge is fair and impartial. Research and proof of foreign law poses various problems that make it generally inappropriate to be the subject of administrative notice. There is no right to a security clearance. Judge must make findings and draw inferences and conclusions that reflect a reasonable interpretation of record evidence. Department Counsel does not have burden of disproving applicability of Adjudicative Guideline mitigating conditions. Guideline B (Foreign Influence) is not limited to situations involving coercive means of influence. Given totality of Applicant's conduct and his strong, long-term ties with a foreign country, Applicant has heavy burden of persuasion that he should get a security clearance. Judge can consider whether an applicant has satisfied the requirements of ASDC3I memo. Favorable decision reversed.


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

12/13/2000

Administrative Judge's decision about allowing a post-hearing submission can be reviewed to determine whether it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Department Counsel does not have burden of disproving Adjudicative Guidelines mitigating conditions. Obtaining a foreign country passport is an act of exercising the rights or privileges of a citizen of that foreign country. Getting a foreign passport to protect the applicant's ability to claim the rights and privileges of a citizen of that foreign country is demonstrating a tangible interest in exercising the rights and privileges of a foreign citizen. Decisions under Executive Order 10865 are not loyalty determinations. Judge erred by viewing Applicant's conduct and circumstances in a piecemeal manner. Favorable decision reversed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

12/13/2000

An applicant's pro se status does not excuse the applicant from the obligation to take reasonable steps to protect his or her rights. An applicant can waive his or her nonconstitutional right to retain a lawyer by failing to take timely, reasonable steps to retain a lawyer. An applicant who decides to represent himself or herself at a hearing cannot later complain about the quality of his or her own representation. Absent harmful error, a party is not entitled to have a case remanded to give the party a second chance to present its case. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has obligation to raise and demonstrate error. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

12/06/2000

The Applicant was less than candid with the Government as to his past history of spousal abuse in his August 1998 sworn statement. This wilful falsification is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, and further demonstrates a pattern of criminal conduct. Clearance Denied.


Drugs

12/01/2000

Applicant's illegal drug use has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

11/29/2000

Neither a Hearing Office Administrative Judge nor the Board has the jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate the manner in which DOHA personnel decide to issue or not issue Statements of Reasons (SORs), to order DOHA personnel to issue or not issue SORs, or to dismiss an SOR. Department Counsel is not required to prove that Applicant's possession of a foreign passport poses a "clear and present danger" to the national security. The absence of security violations does not preclude an adverse decision based on other grounds. The federal government is not equitably estopped from denying or revoking a security clearance. Application of ASDC3I memo mandates an adverse decision in light of Applicant's possession of a foreign passport. Board does not have authority to decide whether a security clearance is required for a particular job or position in industry. Adverse decision affirmed.


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

11/28/2000

Whether Administrative Judge can apply a particular mitigating condition does not turn on what is alleged in the Statement of Reasons, but on what the record evidence shows. Judge erred by relying on earlier version of Foreign Influence Mitigating Condition 1. Once Department Counsel demonstrates that an applicant's circumstances raise a security concern under the Directive, the applicant has the burden of demonstrating extenuation or mitigation of that security concern. Under ASDC3I memorandum, surrender of foreign passport is achieved by returning the passport to the issuing authority (or whatever other person or entity is authorized by law), not by giving the passport to a third party or entity. Board does not have jurisdiction or authority to pass judgment on the wisdom or desirability of guidance provided by the ASDC3I. Given Applicant's continued possession of a foreign passport, ASDC3I memorandum mandates reversal of Judge's favorable conclusions. Favorable decision reversed.


Personal Conduct; Sexual Behavior; Criminal Conduct

11/28/2000

Appeal Board lacks jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of cases committed to the authority and jurisdiction of another governmental body. Administrative Judge's credibility determinations are entitled to deference on appeal. Bare assertion of bias by appealing party is clearly inadequate to overcome rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge is fair and impartial. Favorable security record does not preclude an adverse decision based on other grounds. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

11/07/2000

Administrative Judge erred by making assumptions about what documents were made available to DOHA by the Defense Security Service. Judge erred by assuming that Department Counsel had any obligation to include certain documents in the File of Relevant Material. If Department Counsel is aware of potentially exculpatory information in the possession of DOHA, then Department Counsel is obligated to disclose such information to the applicant. Case remanded to the Judge with instructions.


Criminal Conduct

10/23/2000

Under Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 5 (E2.A10.1.3.5) the word "acquittal" will not be construed in a manner that deviates from the commonly understood meaning of the term. Board will not disturb an Administrative Judge's weighing of the evidence unless there has been a showing the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

10/20/2000

There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Memorandum by ASDC3I providing guidance about adjudicative standards supersedes any interpretation of those standards by Appeal Board. Use of a foreign passport for personal convenience is indicative of a foreign preference. Conditional willingness to renounce foreign citizenship is entitled to less weight than an unconditional willingness to do so. Security significance of Applicant's family ties in a foreign country is not limited to consideration of whether Applicant can be coerced because of those family ties. Security significance of an applicant's family ties in a foreign country does not turn on the simple question of whether the applicant's relatives have official ties with a foreign government. The Administrative Judge erred by evaluating the facts and circumstances of Applicant's case in a piecemeal manner. Favorable decision reversed.


Criminal Conduct

10/19/2000

On appeal, a party cannot fairly challenge an Administrative Judge's finding after agreeing, at the hearing, with the Judge's interpretation of the record evidence that supports the finding. Factors other than demeanor and inflection go into the decision whether or not to believe a witness. Applicant's statements about his intentions and state of mind are relevant evidence, but they are not binding or conclusive. An applicant's intent or state of mind can be proven by circumstantial evidence even in the face of denials that the applicant acted with a particular intent or state of mind. Judge's application of various provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines is not sustainable. Favorable decision reversed.


Foreign Preference

10/17/2000

Reciprocity provision (Section 2-203) of National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual does not limit or control the authority of a federal agency to reopen or reconsider its own security clearance decisions. Guidance from Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASDC3I) concerning adjudicative standards supersedes any interpretation of those standards by the Board. According to ASDC3I memorandum, possession or use of foreign passport is disqualifying unless it has the official approval of the United States Government. Application of ASDC3I memorandum mandates reversal of Administrative Judge's favorable formal findings on SOR paragraphs concerning Applicant's possession and retention of a foreign country passport. Judge's adverse decision can be affirmed on alternate grounds. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

09/22/2000

When the record contains conflicting evidence, the Administrative Judge must carefully weigh the evidence in a reasonable, common sense manner and make findings that reflect a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that takes into account all the record evidence. Judge's findings in this case reflect a plausible, legally permissible interpretation of record evidence. Provisions of the Directive must be applied in a reasonable, common sense manner. Judge did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof by considering the evidence presented by Department Counsel and the evidence presented by Applicant and deciding the weight of the evidence supported Applicant's explanations more than it supported Department Counsel's theory of the case. Favorable decision affirmed.


Drugs

09/19/2000

Board does not have authority to conduct additional investigation of an applicant. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant's overall history of marijuana use provides rational basis for the Administrative Judge's adverse conclusions. Adverse decision affirmed.


Emotional, Mental, and Personality Disorders; Criminal Conduct

09/18/2000

Administrative Judge had to consider the record evidence as a whole in deciding what weight to give to psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis of Applicant. The Judge did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner by relying on the evaluation and diagnosis of Applicant by a Department of Defense psychiatric consultant. The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant does not demonstrate the Judge weighed the record evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

08/29/2000

There is no record evidence that supports Applicant's appeal assertion that government handled his case in 1998 in a manner that was disparate from its handling of his case in 1997. Applicant's multiple acts of falsification provide a rational basis for the Administrative Judge's adverse security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.


Financial

08/17/2000

Administrative Judge did not have an adequate basis in the record evidence for finding Applicant made a good faith effort to repay one of his unsatisfied debts. Judge did not articulate a sustainable basis for concluding Applicant had mitigated two unsatisfied debts. Favorable decision reversed.


Alcohol; Criminal Conduct

08/15/2000

Silence of the Directive with respect to authorizing or precluding any specific procedure does not preclude an Administrative Judge from considering other provisions of the Directive or general principles of federal administrative law that may be relevant in deciding whether a particular procedure should be used or not. Judge erred in applying various Adjudicative Guidelines Mitigating Conditions. Correction of Judge's errors warrants reversal in light of negative security implications of Applicant's overall history of alcohol abuse and criminal conduct. Favorable decision reversed.


Financial

07/25/2000

There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising and demonstrating error. A promise to take remedial steps in future is not evidence of reform or rehabilitation. Applicant's history of financial difficulties provides rational basis for Judge's adverse conclusions about his security eligibility. Statement of Reasons (SOR) is not judged by strict standards of a criminal indictment. Overall purposes of industrial security program are not well-served by interpreting the Directive in a manner that emphasizes pleading formalities over a full and fair adjudication of cases on the merits. Judge erred by refusing to consider Department Counsel's motion to amend the SOR. Adverse decision affirmed.


Sexual Behavior; Misuse of Information Technology; Personal Conduct

07/24/2000

Merely because Applicant's sexual indiscretion was not more serious does not mean the Administrative Judge erred by considering its security significance in light of record evidence as a whole. A Judge's conclusions must follow rationally from the Judge's factual findings. Statement of Reasons (SOR) is not judged by strict standards of a criminal indictment. In assessing sufficiency of an SOR, it is necessary to balance the need for fair notice to an applicant against the need to avoid transforming SOR pleadings into a game of wits in which a minor or technical misstep is decisive. An SOR allegation may rationally be included under more than one Criterion. An applicant's security eligibility must be evaluated in light of whole person concept, not in an artificial, piecemeal fashion. Mere presence or absence of an Adjudicative Guideline Disqualifying or Mitigating Condition is not solely dispositive of a case. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct; Financial

07/12/2000

Presence of some favorable record evidence did not require Administrative Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. Applicant's current financial problems provide rational basis for the Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

07/10/2000

Administrative Judge erred by finding that Applicant had a reasonable legal basis for failing to disclose to the government a 1996 incident which resulted in five criminal charges and, ultimately, one conviction. Judge erred by concluding that Applicant's embarrassment mitigated his falsification. Record evidence does not support Judge's finding that Applicant's falsification was excusable as a result of stress. Favorable decision reversed.


Financial; Personal Conduct

06/28/2000

Applicant failed to take reasonable steps to inform DOHA of status of his response to the File of Relevant Materials after he received information that his response might have been destroyed in a postal fire. Even if the Board were to conclude Applicant had acted reasonably, he would not be entitled to relief. Applicant was not harmed or prejudiced by the fact the Administrative Judge never received his documents because the Judge entered formal findings in favor of Applicant with respect to the SOR allegations to which Applicant's documents pertained. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct

06/27/2000

Applicant's willful failure to file federal income tax returns for several years in the 1990s provides a rational basis for the Administrative Judge's adverse conclusions about her security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct; Financial

06/08/2000

Applicant's right to due process in these proceedings does not include the right to litigate the legality of the tax laws or the practices and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service. Record evidence supports the Administrative Judge's findings that Applicant willfully failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 1993 through 1997 and that he owed taxes for 1994 and 1995. Applicant's willful fail to file income tax returns provides rational basis for Judge's adverse conclusions. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

06/05/2000

It was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for Administrative Judge to consider likelihood that Applicant might continue or repeat her past misconduct. Applicant's history of multiple falsifications about her employment history and residential history provided a rational basis for Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's suitability for a security clearance. Adverse decision affirmed.


Financial; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

05/25/2000

Ex parte communications between an Administrative Judge and a party (or a lawyer) to a case could raise serious questions about the fairness and integrity of a hearing. A Judge and a lawyer each has obligations to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Judge's application of Adjudicative Guidelines was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant's history of financial difficulties provides rational basis for Judge's adverse conclusions about his security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.


Financial

05/24/2000

When reviewing challenge to Administrative Judge's findings, the Board looks to the record as a whole to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the challenged findings. DOHA Judges and the Board must accept rulings of federal courts on the validity and legality of the tax laws and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) practices and procedures. Judge had sufficient evidence to find Applicant owes the IRS approximately $115,000. Judge had rational basis for his adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

05/19/2000

Administrative Judge is not required to discuss every piece of evidence in record. Applicant's history of criminal conduct and falsification provides a rational basis for Judge's conclusions. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct

05/19/2000

Administrative Judge's findings about Applicant's drug abuse history were harmless error when viewed in light of the Judge's decision in its entirety. Simple typographical error by Judge does not warrant remand or reversal. Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's falsifications in 1996 and 1998 are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.


Drugs; Personal Conduct

05/17/2000

Applicant who tested positive for marijuana and adulterated his test sample to avoid detection fails to overcome trust and reliability questions despite twenty-two months free of drugs marked by 36 negative drug tests. Clearance is denied.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

05/12/2000

Applicant's denials of any intent to falsify are relevant and material evidence, but they are not binding or conclusive on Administrative Judge. The Judge had a rational basis to find that Applicant's omissions about his past criminal record were intentional, not inadvertent or the result of a reasonable belief that his answers were correct. Security clearance decisions are not limited to consideration of an applicant's job performance. Adverse decision affirmed.


Drugs; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

05/05/2000

Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Except for one harmless error, the Administrative Judge's findings about Applicant's drug abuse history and deliberate falsifications are sustainable. Board does not review the methods and scope of Defense Security Service investigations. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct; Financial

05/04/2000

Administrative Judge's weighing of the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant's falsifications in February 1998 and his history of financial difficulties provide a rational basis for Judge's security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

05/03/2000

Applicant cannot simply drop defense used during proceedings below and raise a totally new defense based on a technical reading of state law that was not raised below. Applicant's denials of any intent to falsify a security questionnaire in August 1998 are relevant and material evidence, but are not binding or conclusive on Administrative Judge. Record evidence as a whole supports Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security questionnaire in August 1998. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct; Drugs

05/01/2000

With narrow exceptions, an applicant is collaterally estopped from contending that he or she did not engage in criminal acts for which he or she was convicted. Administrative Judge erred by finding Applicant did not really engage in the criminal conduct covered by his guilty plea to a felony drug charge. Judge erred by giving weight to Applicant's expressed hope that his probation might be ended earlier. Favorable decision reversed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

04/27/2000

Applicant's pattern of dishonest and deceptive employment practices involving requesting sick leave under false pretenses, falsifying a time card, making false statements to a supervisor resulting in employment termination, falsifying a resume, and intentionally attempting to conceal material information on a security clearance application have not been mitigated by evidence of reform and rehabilitation to any extent. Clearance is denied.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

04/19/2000

Credibility determinations based on an Administrative Judge's evaluation of a File of Relevant Material are not entitled to same degree of deference given to credibility determinations based on personal observation of an applicant's testimony at a hearing. There is no rule of evidence that compels a Judge to accept testimony or a statement merely because they are unrebutted. Record evidence does not support Judge's finding that Applicant did not intend to falsify a security questionnaire. Judge's piecemeal analysis of record evidence is not sustainable. Favorable decision reversed.


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference; Financial Considerations

04/18/2000

Harmless errors by the Administrative Judge do not warrant remand or reversal. The Judge's application of the Financial Considerations Adjudicative Guidelines was generally sustainable. Applicant's history of financial problems provides a rational basis for the Judge's adverse conclusions about her security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.


Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

04/13/2000

Applicant's denials of an intent to falsify a security questionnaire are relevant and material evidence, but they are not binding or conclusive on Administrative Judge. Judge's finding that Applicant falsified a security questionnaire in July 1998 reflects a plausible interpretation of record evidence. Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's conduct provide rational basis for his adverse conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility.


Alcohol; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

04/12/2000

Applicant's dissatisfaction with wording of an allegation in Statement of Reasons (SOR) is irrelevant to actual findings the Administrative Judge made about that SOR allegation. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Once allegations in SOR are admitted or proven, burden shifts to applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a favorable security clearance decision. Applicant's history of alcohol abuse and his falsification of a security clearance application in December 1997 provide a rational basis for Judge's adverse conclusions about Applicant's suitability for a security clearance. Adverse decision affirmed.


Criminal Conduct; Sexual Behavior

04/11/2000

Administrative Judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to consider a brief on remand. Judge erred in his application of certain Adjudicative Guidelines. Record evidence does not support Judge's finding that Applicant has successfully rehabilitated himself and there is no evidence to the contrary. Judge's decision is arbitrary and capricious. Favorable decision reversed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

04/07/2000

If Department Counsel believes proven or admitted incidents are serious enough to warrant consideration independently of or in conjunction with other record evidence, Department Counsel can move to amend Statement of Reasons. Administrative Judge's piecemeal analysis of Applicant's history of misconduct was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Judge erred in applying Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition 5. Favorable decision reversed.


Criminal Conduct; Financial

03/30/2000

An applicant is not made more or less suitable for a security clearance based on how a security clearance decision might affect the applicant. Applicant's job performance does not negate the security significance of his financial difficulties. Applicant's failure to resolve his tax debts is a legitimate factor for the Administrative Judge to consider. Adverse decision affirmed.


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

03/21/2000

Foreign Preference Mitigating Condition 1 can be applied by its literal terms without regard to whether an applicant has exercised the rights and privileges of foreign citizenship. It was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law for Administrative Judge to rely on a 1983 internal DoD memorandum. Official or administrative notice may be taken in appropriate cases. A federal agency cannot base its decisions on "secret law" that is unknown or unavailable to affected members of the public. Judge erred by referring to Applicant's loyalty. Board will not issue an advisory opinion. Even in absence of a cross-appeal, the non-appealing party is entitled to urge affirmance of the decision below on the basis of any matter supported by the record, even if the argument relies on matters overlooked, ignored, not relied on, or even rejected by the lower tribunal. Favorable decision affirmed on alternate grounds.


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

03/17/2000

This 40-year-old Applicant was born in FC but has lived in the US since age 17 and is a US citizen. He obtained a FC passport in mid-1990s to search for prospective wife in FC. He was afraid FC authorities would harass him if he revealed his US citizenship or used his US passport. He has never used the FC passport for any other purpose. He has established strong ties to the US and has minimal ties to FC. No FC preference of any kind has been found and the possibility of foreign influence is not established by the record. Clearance granted.


Security Violations; Misuse of Information Technology

03/01/2000

Under industrial security program, an applicant's responsibility for properly handling and safeguarding classified information entrusted to him or her cannot be delegated to other employees of defense contractor. Neither an Administrative Judge nor the Board has authority to take action under Federal Acquisition Regulation. Nothing in Directive authorizes a Judge or the Board to grant a conditional security clearance. A history of negligent or inadvertent security violations can provide a rational basis for an adverse security clearance decision. Value of an applicant's expertise to a defense contractor or a military service is not relevant or material to determining the applicant's suitability for a security clearance. Under particular facts of this case, Applicant was not prejudiced by his failure to obtain the testimony of a DoD employee. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

02/29/2000

When record contains conflicting evidence, Administrative Judge must carefully weigh the evidence in a reasonable, common sense manner and make findings that reflect a reasonable interpretation of the record evidence as a whole. Deference owed to a Judge's credibility determinations does not immunize them from review. Judge's finding that Applicant did not deliberately falsify a security questionnaire in June 1998 by failing to list felony charges does not reflect a reasonable, plausible interpretation of record evidence as a whole. Favorable decision reversed.


Alcohol; Financial Considerations

02/25/2000

Applicant's overall history of alcohol abuse from 1978 to 1989 and 1997 to January 1999 provided a rational basis for the Administrative Judge's conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

02/24/2000

Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Administrative Judge did not err by concluding Applicant did not mitigate his multiple acts of falsification and dishonesty. Board does not review Judge's decision based on consideration of isolated sentences. Board reviews Judge's decision in its entirety to determine what the Judge found and concluded. Adverse decision affirmed.


Misuse of Information Technology; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct; Sexual Behavior

02/23/2000

Record evidence supports Administrative Judge's findings that: (a) Applicant intentionally downloaded pornographic images onto his government computer; and (b) Applicant falsified material facts during an October 1998 interview when he stated he did not intentionally download pornographic images onto his government computer. Adverse decision affirmed.


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/22/2000

Applicant's excessive financial indebtedness has been mitigated. Applicant's dishonest personal conduct by committing welfare fraud has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.


Foreign Influence; Foreign Preference

02/16/2000

Absence of evidence that Applicant has affirmatively disavowed a preference for U.S. citizenship did not relieve Administrative Judge from his obligation to evaluate security significance of Applicant's exercise of dual citizenship. Conditional offer to renounce foreign citizenship is not entitled to be given the same weight as an unconditional offer. Absence of a sinister motive does not reduce the negative security implications of Applicant's voluntary procurement of foreign country citizenship and his voluntary procurement and use of a foreign country passport. Favorable decision reversed.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

02/11/2000

The deference owed to an Administrative Judge's credibility determinations does not immunize them from review. Record evidence as a whole does not support Judge's finding that Applicant did not intend to falsify June 1998 security questionnaire. Judge erred in her application of various Adjudicative Guidelines. Favorable decision reversed.


Financial; Personal Conduct

02/09/2000

There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has burden of raising and demonstrating error below. Board need not review Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions when an applicant does not challenge them on appeal. Judge did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner when he rejected Applicant's late response to the File of Relevant Material.


Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

01/28/2000

There is sufficient record evidence to sustain the Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant intentionally omitted felony charges when he executed a security questionnaire in August 1998, An applicant is not made more or less suitable for a security clearance based on how a security clearance decision might affect the applicant. Falsification of a security questionnaire provides a rational basis for an adverse security clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.


Drugs; Personal Conduct

01/21/2000

Marijuana use is drug abuse within the meaning of Criterion H. Drug abuse can pose a security risk in a variety of ways. Government not required to demonstrate a quantifiable level of risk that a given applicant may mishandle classified information when under the influence of illegal drugs such as marijuana. Value of technology Applicant developed is irrelevant to a determination whether Applicant has demonstrated the high degree of judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness that must be expected of persons granted access to classified information.


Foreign Preference; Foreign Influence

01/18/2000

Applicant has been US citizen for 3 years and has US passport. He is also citizen of two foreign countries (FC) and has passport from one FC. He maintains FC citizenship to protect possible retirement benefits in each country, and uses FC passport to visit that country, as required of FC citizens, but knows he can renounce FC citizenship and use US passport. He has not done so because of concern for retirement benefits. No mitigation or extenuation established. Clearance denied.


Drugs; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct

01/18/2000

Administrative Judge acted properly when he considered all the record evidence, both favorable and unfavorable. Judge's conclusions about Applicant's security eligibility follow rationally from his findings about her criminal record and falsifications. Adverse decision affirmed.


Financial; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

01/11/2000

Administrative Judge's finding of willful falsifications by Applicant in April 1998 and September 1998 supported by record evidence. Security clearance decisions not limited to consideration of applicant's conduct during duty hours. Under whole person concept, Judge must consider an applicant's overall history of conduct and not evaluate it in a piecemeal manner. Adverse decision affirmed.


« 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
Last updated 22 Nov 2014