CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00075.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00075.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00075.a1

May 13, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied based on financial considerations (Guideline F) and alcohol consumption (Guideline G). The applicant admitted to failing to file required federal and state income tax returns and owed approximately $3,516.54 to the IRS. These financial issues were cited under Disqualifying Conditions F1 and F2.

While Mitigating Condition G2 was applied regarding alcohol consumption, it was insufficient to overcome the financial concerns. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the determination that the applicant's financial conduct provided a valid basis for denial.

Ultimately, the applicant's failure to meet tax obligations and the outstanding debt to the IRS were the primary factors leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1appliedFailure to File Tax Returns
F2appliedUnpaid Tax Debt

Mitigating

G2appliedAlcohol Consumption Not a Concern

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 issuedAug 16, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 24, 2020Decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 13, 2020Appeal decision.

Cite For

Denial Based on Failure to File Tax Returns Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Indebtedness on Security Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of Judge's Decision When No Harmful Error Is Established

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 security clearance based on financial considerations and alcohol consumption. The applicant argued that the amount of his IRS debt was incorrect and that the decision would adversely affect him and others. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the amount of his alleged IRS indebtedness was incorrect.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge's decision will have an adverse impact on him, his employer, and his clients.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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; Guideline G DIGEST: Applicant’s Appeal Brief contends the amount of his alleged IRS indebtedness was incorrect. However, in responding to DOHA interrogatories, he submitted an IRS tax transcript that reflects he owed the alleged amount as of March 2019. He also contends that the Judge’s decision will have a adverse impact on him, his employer, and his clients, but such an impact is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed CASE NO: 19-00075.a1 DATE: 05/13/2020

DATE: May 13, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-00075 ) ) 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 August 16, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On January 24, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s favorable findings regarding the Guideline G allegations and one Guideline F allegation have not been raised as an issue on appeal. The Judge found against Applicant on allegations asserting that he failed to file his Federal income tax return for 2016 as required, failed to file his state income tax returns for 2016 and 2017 as required, and was indebted to the IRS in the approximate amount of $3,516.54 for 2015. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted those allegations. Applicant’s Appeal Brief and Notice of Appeal contain documents that are not included in the record. Some of those documents post-date the Judge’s decision. He also makes assertions in his Appeal Brief that he had not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s Appeal Brief contends the amount of his alleged IRS indebtedness was incorrect. However, in responding to DOHA interrogatories, he submitted an IRS tax transcript that reflects he owed the alleged amount as of March 2019. He also contends that the Judge’s decision will have a adverse impact on him, his employer, and his clients, but such an impact is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10758 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013). 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