WPC > Ɔ  wƸQT}d6r_allC69Ixt@&fa2RQT\=c6Dh"jxbcNHRrzEε{lgtjFkGY|A}tP3V|-_4"^w ʄh]GfC;P3mS٬W71د9F0ƇVuyʱnlꕳbɛc4S>;λMH=Nܹ## APPEARANCES &  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  ( JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel b )  FORAPPLICANT  "b+ TokayT.Hackett,Esq.#XX%& # ":,       TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnMay % / 16,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat &!0 decision"securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)andGuidelineE r'"1 (PersonalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended) ^(#2 (Directive).Applicantrequestedadecisiononthewrittenrecord.OnAugust17,2017,after J)$3 consideringtherecord,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge 6*%4 CarolG._Ricciardello_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealed "+r&5 pursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,^'6     Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas -6)8 arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm    The_SOR_Ԁalleged23delinquentdebts.InhisAnswertothe_SOR_,Applicantclaimedmost t oftheallegedthedebtswerepaidinfull,somewerepartofaconsolidatedpaymentarrangement ` since2013,andotherswerepartofaconsolidatedpaymentarrangementsince2014. #  1      ׀Applicantdid L  notprovidedocumentstocorroboratethatanyoftheallegeddebtswerepaidorwerebeingpaid 8  throughpaymentarrangements. $ t   The_SOR_ԀalsoallegedthatApplicantfalsifiedhisresponsetoaquestiononasecurity  L  clearanceapplication(_SCA_)in2013byfailingtodisclosethathehadbeenarrestedforsexual  8  solicitationin2011.Regardingthisallegation,theJudgefound: $  8   ` Applicantwasrepeatedlygivenanopportunitytodisclosetotheinvestigator   thathehadbeenarrested.Eachtimehewasaskedthequestion,hedeniedhewas   arrested.Whenhewasconfrontedwiththearrest,hedeniedtheincidentever   happened.Whenhewasagainconfrontedwiththearrest,headmittedit,butthen p _follow[ed_]upthathewasnotconvicted.Applicantsrepeateddenials[go]tohis \ intentwhenhecompletedhis_SCA_.Hewenttocourt,completed40hoursof H communityservice,paidcourtcostandthechargewaseventuallydismissed.The 4 instructionsforcompletionofSection22[ofthe_SCA_]areclearandrequire  p disclosureofanyinformationregardlessofwhetherthecasewassealed,expunged,  \ orotherwisestricken.Ihaveconsideredthathesaidhewastoldtheincidentwasnot H partofhispermanentrecord.However,thereisampleevidencetosupportthathe 4 wasattemptingtokeepthisinformationfromthegovernmentbyinterpretingthe   _SCA_Ԁsohewouldnothavetodisclosethearrest.Thisissupportedbyhisrepeatedly   tellingthegovernmentinvestigatorthathewasneverarrested,theincidentnever  happened,andhewasneverconvicted.Inaddition,heindicatedinhisanswertothe  _SOR_,thathewasawareoftheincidentandawarethemisdemeanorchargewas  dismissed,buthebelieveditwouldnotbeplacedorsearchableonhispermanent l record.IfindApplicantdeliberatelyfailedtodisclosehis2011arrest. #  2      ׀X      Intheappealbrief,ApplicantchallengestheJudgesfindingsoffactregardingthe 0"  falsificationallegation.Indoingso,hemakesreferencea DeferredProsecutionAgreementand #l! toastatuteandcourtcaseinvolvedinsealingthepolicerecordofApplicantsarrestforsexual $X" solicitation.SuchinformationwasnotpreviouslyprovidedtotheJudgeforherconsiderationand $D # constitutesnewevidencethattheAppealBoardcannotconsider.DirectiveE3.1.29.Furthermore, %0!$ giventheplainlanguageofthequestioninthe_SCA_,evenifthenewevidencehadbeentimely  proffered,itisveryunlikelythatitwouldhavealteredtheJudgesfindings.Fromourreviewofthe  record,theJudgesmaterialfindingsregardingthefalsificationallegationarebasedonsubstantial  evidenceorconstitutereasonableinferencesorconclusionsthatcouldbedrawnfromtheevidence. t ApplicanthascitedtonoharmfulerrorintheJudgesfindings._ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1203420at3(App. ` Bd.Jul.25,2014). L    Applicantcitestoevidencethathearguesisfavorabletohim,includingstatementsinthe $ t interviewsummarytotheeffectthat thereisnothingin[his]backgroundorlifestylethatcouldbe  ` usedagainsthimforblackmailorcoercion,toincludehisarrest....AppealBriefat11.However,  L  thesecommentssummarizeApplicantsanswerstotheinterviewersquestion.Theydonot  8  constitutetheinterviewersconsideredopinionastoApplicantsworthinessforaclearance.Inany $  event,evenifaninvestigatorprovidedsuchanopinion,itwouldnotbindtheDoDinitsevaluation   ofanapplicantscase.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1403069at3(App.Bd.Jul.30,2015).   Ѐ  ThebalanceofApplicantsargumentsamounttoadisagreementwiththeJudgesweighing   oftheevidence.Specifically,hearguestheJudgedidnotexaminerelevantevidenceandmis p weighedtheevidence.Hisarguments,however,areneithersufficienttorebutthepresumptionthat \ theJudgeconsideredalloftheevidencenorenoughtoestablishthattheJudgeweighedtheevidence H inamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1600844 4 at2(App.Bd.Jul.25,2017).  p     ApplicanthasnotidentifiedanyharmfulerrorintheJudgesdecision.TheJudgeexamined H therelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthedecision.Thedecisionis 4 sustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhen   clearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484   U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnel  beingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.   h+&* Ї@( Order  t   TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . L     `     h    `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ  d    `     h   MichaelRaanan  P     `     h   AdministrativeJudge  <     `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard (     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge t    `     h   Member,AppealBoard `    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy____ $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___