CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00523.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00523.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00523.a1

May 11, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant failed to file tax returns for a twelve-year period, from 2005 to 2017. Additionally, he had five delinquent debts exceeding a total of $15,000. These issues triggered disqualifying conditions F.1 and F.3.

The applicant contended that his ex-wife was responsible for the unfiled tax returns and that he was actively negotiating to resolve his outstanding debts. However, the appeal board found no harmful errors in the judge's initial decision to deny the clearance.

While mitigating condition F.2 was considered, it was ultimately insufficient to overcome the significant financial concerns presented by the unfiled tax returns and the substantial delinquent debts. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFailure to File or Pay Taxes
F.3raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedInability to Pay DebtsThe applicant's claims regarding his ex-wife's responsibility for tax filings and ongoing negotiations for debt resolution did not mitigate the financial concerns.

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 issuedJun 21, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJan 27, 2020Decision made by Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola.
Decision dateMay 11, 2020Appeal board decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Failure to File Tax Returns as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standard for Granting Clearance Consistent with National Security Interests

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 was not responsible for filing tax returns and had mitigating circumstances regarding his debts. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge committed harmful errors in the decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful errors in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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 contends that his ex-wife was responsible for filing their tax returns and argues that he cannot obtain W-2's from the IRS that are more than 10 years old. He also notes that one debt was for an automobile loan he cosigned for his former step-daughter, and he is negotiating a resolution of that debt. His arguments fail to establish that the Judge committed any harmful errors in the decision. He further asserts that his job requires a security clearance. However, the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. Adverse decsion is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00523.a1 DATE: 05/11/2020

DATE: May 11, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00523 ) ) 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 June 21, 2019, 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 decision on the written record. On January 27, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for at least 2005 through 2017 as required and had five delinquent debts totaling over $15,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on one debt totaling about $2,500 and against him on the other allegations.

Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents postdating the Judge’s decision upon which he makes arguments. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that his ex-wife was responsible for filing their tax returns and argues that he cannot obtain W-2's from the IRS that are more than 10 years old. He also notes that one debt was for an automobile loan he cosigned for his former step-daughter, and he is negotiating a resolution of that debt. His arguments fail to establish that the Judge committed any harmful errors in the decision. He further asserts that his job requires a security clearance. However, the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04202 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 24, 2015). 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