CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05820.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05820.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05820.a1

Jun 24, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a pattern of failing to file tax returns. The applicant did not file tax returns from 2011 to 2016 in a timely manner, which raised disqualifying conditions under F.2.a.

The judge determined that this consistent pattern of late filings created significant concerns regarding the applicant's reliability and judgment. While the applicant presented arguments about his contributions to national security, these were ultimately deemed insufficient to mitigate the security risks posed by his financial conduct.

Consequently, the appeal was denied, as the applicant's failure to meet basic financial obligations over an extended period outweighed any mitigating factors presented.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.2.araisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 13, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 10, 2019
Decision dateJun 24, 2019

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Failure to File Taxes Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns by Contributions to National Security
Affirmation of Judge's Decision Based on Reliability and Judgment Concerns

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that he did not recall certain discussions regarding his tax filings and claimed that his late filings began in 2001. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowStephanie C. Hess — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not establish any harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and followed proper procedures. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant indicated that he did not recall the discussion at the hearing or in the summary of his background interview that his late tax filings started in 2011. He further states that his late filings started with his 2001 tax returns following his wife’s car accident. From our reading of his brief, it is unclear what point Applicant is trying to make regarding his 2011 tax returns. We note, however, that Applicant admitted at the hearing that he failed to file his 2011 Federal and state tax returns in a timely manner. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-05820.a1 DATE: 06/24/2019 DATE: June 24, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 15-05820 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 13, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 10, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. As amended, the SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2011 through 2016 in a timely manner. The Judge found against Applicant on the two SOR allegations. She concluded that “Applicant’s pattern of failing to timely file his Federal and state tax returns is recent and raises concerns about his willingness to abide by rules and regulations, and his current reliability and judgment.” Decision at 9. Applicant’s appeal brief includes information not contained in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his appeal brief, Applicant indicated that he did not recall the discussion at the hearing or in the summary of his background interview that his late tax filings started in 2011. He further states that his late filings started with his 2001 tax returns following his wife’s car accident. From our reading of his brief, it is unclear what point Applicant is trying to make regarding his 2011 tax returns. We note, however, that Applicant admitted at the hearing that he failed to file his 2011 Federal and state tax returns in a timely manner. Tr. 12-17, 21, 68-69, and 78-79. The main thrust of Applicant’s appeal brief is that he provides a valuable contribution to national security. In the past, the Appeal Board has noted an applicant’s contributions to national security are not relevant or material in assessing his or her security eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-11570 at 8 (App. Bd. May 19, 2004). To the extent that Applicant is requesting a waiver of the security concerns under Directive, Encl. 2, App. C, he has not shown that such an exception is merited. On this matter, we note the lack of persuasive evidence that explains “the benefit of [Applicant’s] . . . continued eligibility clearly outweighs any security concerns.” Id. The balance of Applicant’s arguments amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. These arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017).

Applicant has not established that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board