CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00221.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00221.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00221.a1

Mar 20, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A long-time defense contracting employee was denied a security clearance primarily due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced disqualification under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20(a) due to a significant, unresolved tax lien of approximately $29,000.

The judge determined there was insufficient evidence of responsible financial management concerning the applicant's tax problems. These financial issues were considered both recent and ongoing, contributing to the denial.

Despite the applicant's claims of personal hardships, the appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the persistent tax problems and lack of demonstrated financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedFeb 8, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 11, 2018
Decision dateMar 20, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Financial Management
Ongoing Financial Problems as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial issues, specifically a significant tax lien. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The Board did not find the Judge's decision to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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
Charles C. Hale

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: The Judge stated that Applicant’s tax problem precedes his wife’s job loss and the deaths of his relatives. He found that Applicant still owes over $116,000 and that there is insufficient evidence that his problems are behind him or that he has acted responsibly in regard to his tax lien. He found that Applicant’s tax problem is recent and ongoing. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00221.a1 DATE: 03/20/2019 DATE: March 20, 2019 In Re: ------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00221

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 February 8, 2018, 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 December 11, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant has worked for his current employer since 2005 and has worked for Defense contractors for about 30 years. He served on active duty with the U.S. military from 1983 until 1987. Applicant has held a clearance for many years. He has a history of financial problems, which include a tax lien as well as other delinquent debts. The Judge found that Applicant had mitigated all but the tax lien, which is alleged in the amount of about $29,000. Applicant attributed his financial problems to his wife having lost her job, to deaths of close family members, and to his having allowed his finances to get “out of hand.” Decision at 2. Applicant made a payment toward his tax lien in 2018, and tax refunds were applied to this debt. These are the only payments that Applicant has made. Applicant’s wife is working again. She has filed a lawsuit and hopes to use the settlement to pay the family’s debts. Applicant has not received financial counseling, although he has hired tax professionals to help him address his problems. The Judge stated that Applicant’s tax problem precedes his wife’s job loss and the deaths of his relatives. He found that Applicant still owes over $116,000 and that there is insufficient evidence that his problems are behind him or that he has acted responsibly in regard to his tax lien. He found that Applicant’s tax problem is recent and ongoing. Decision at 2 and 6.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. He cites to evidence of his wife’s job loss, his mother’s death, and his wife’s current employment. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-04198 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019). Applicant presented a subsequent appeal submission. The Directive permits only one appeal brief by a party. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-03393 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 6, 2018). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision.1 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge made a Formal Finding against Applicant under subparagraph 1.a. and a second Formal Finding in Applicant’s favor for the same sub-paragraph. Reading the Decision as a whole, it is clear that the second finding is an administrative error. See, e.g., 07-02253 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 28, 2008).