CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-04076.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-04076.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-04076.a1

Oct 5, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was based on two primary disqualifying conditions.

First, the applicant failed to file required Federal and state income tax returns for an eleven-year period, from 2007 to 2017. Second, these financial problems were determined to indicate a lack of good judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness on the applicant's part.

Despite the applicant's arguments regarding his work accomplishments and family contributions to national security, the appeal board upheld the denial. The board emphasized that the demonstrated financial irresponsibility was a critical factor, leading to the conclusion that the applicant did not meet the standards for security clearance eligibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial 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 issuedMar 6, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 17, 2020Decision made by Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson
Decision dateOct 5, 2020Appeal decision by the Appeal Board

Cite For

Upholding Denial Based on Tax Filing Deficiencies Under Guideline F
Importance of Good Judgment and Reliability in Security Clearance Decisions
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal Process

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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that he mitigated the concerns but did not challenge the findings regarding tax filing deficiencies. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 he mitigated the Guideline F security concerns.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's analysis and conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the applicant failed to establish any harmful errors.

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 contends that he mitigated the Guideline F security concerns. In doing so, he highlights his work accomplishments and his family’s contributions to national security. He notes that he was granted an interim clearance because there was nothing in his background to show that he was at risk for blackmail or coercion or that his financial problems are unlikely to recur. His arguments are not enough to show that the Judge’s analysis or conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. He notes that an adverse decision will have an negative impact on his family, but such a matter is not a relevant consideration in assessing an individual’s security clearance eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-04076.a1 DATE: 10/05/2020 DATE: October 5, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-04076 ) ) 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 March 6, 2020, 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 July 17, 2020, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance after considering the record evidence. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant failed to file, as required, his Federal and state income tax returns for 2007-2017 and that he had a delinquent debt of about $114. The Judge found against Applicant on the tax return filing deficiencies and in favor of him on the alleged debt. In her decision, the Judge found that, during a former marriage from 2006 to 2014, Applicant’s ex-wife filed income tax returns each year in which she claimed only herself and their children. For an eleven-year period during and after his former marriage, Applicant did not file tax returns and allowed his ex-wife to continue to file the tax returns in that manner even though he knew such action would cause him future tax problems. Applicant filed his Federal and state income tax returns for 2014-2018 in November 2019. He contends that he was advised by tax consultants that he did not have to file Federal and state tax returns for 2007-2013 but submitted no documentation corroborating that assertion. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems showed a lack of good judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents that were not submitted to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings or conclusions regarding the alleged tax filing deficiencies. He does argue that he provided documentation showing he has a tax payment plan with the state. His tax indebtedness, however, was neither alleged in the SOR nor a basis for denying him security clearance eligibility. Applicant contends that he mitigated the Guideline F security concerns. In doing so, he highlights his work accomplishments and his family’s contributions to national security. He notes that he was granted an interim clearance because there was nothing in his background to show that he was at risk for blackmail or coercion or that his financial problems are unlikely to recur. His arguments are not enough to show that the Judge’s analysis or conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. He notes that an adverse decision will have an negative impact on his family, but such a matter is not a relevant consideration in assessing an individual’s security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01098 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 11, 2020). Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful errors. 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