CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02728 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02728denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02728

Nov 12, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a significant unresolved tax debt of $250,418. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding that the applicant had failed to act responsibly to resolve his delinquent debts or establish a payment agreement with the IRS.

The applicant acknowledged making poor financial decisions and asserted his personal reliability and accountability. However, the appeal board determined these arguments were insufficient to rebut the judge's thorough consideration of the evidence presented.

The decision emphasized that national security is paramount in clearance determinations. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was denied, with the board concluding that the unresolved financial issues posed an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedDec 3, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 23, 2019
Decision dateNov 12, 2019

Cite For

Insufficient Rebuttal of Financial Disqualifications Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations
Standards for Evaluating Personal Reliability and Accountability in Financial Matters

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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in her whole-person analysis and claimed to have demonstrated personal reliability. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — 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 contends that the Judge erred in her whole-person analysis.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

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: Applicant acknowledges that he made some poor decisions that he strongly regrets. He also contends that the Judge erred in her whole-person analysis and argues that he has demonstrated personal reliability and professional accountability over the past eight years while working on a project. His arguments, however, are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02728 DATE: 11/12/2019

DATE: November 12, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ---------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-02728 ) ) 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 December 3, 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 August 23, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge summarized the case as follows: Applicant was a tax protester for many years, despite the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sending him notices about his legal requirements for several years. He chose to ignore those notices and accumulated a Federal tax debt of $250,418. He was also put on notice that he had several delinquent accounts when he had his background interview in 2017, and after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued in late 2018. Applicant failed to act responsibly to resolve his delinquent debts, or to establish a payment agreement with the IRS. His debt, including extensive past- due Federal income tax debt, remains ongoing and unresolved. Guideline F (financial considerations) security concerns are not mitigated. Access to classified information is denied. [Decision at 1.] In his appeal brief, Applicant states he was told that he will never have access to classified information or access to restricted areas without an escort. However, these are not relevant matters for our consideration. Our jurisdiction is limited to those issues set forth in Directive ¶ E3.1.32. We have no authority to consider the extent to which an applicant may or may not actually have access to classified information in the course of his or her job. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00508 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 23, 2015). Applicant acknowledges that he made some poor decisions that he strongly regrets. He also contends that the Judge erred in her whole-person analysis and argues that he has demonstrated personal reliability and professional accountability over the past eight years while working on a project. His arguments, however, are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 01284 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2015). Applicant has failed to establish 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